Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In Wisconsin, Clinton Has a Specific Appeal

By Jose Antonio Vargas
ON THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN PLANE -- Speaking to reporters late Monday night, a small glass of red wine in hand, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about her campaign's accusation of plagiarism against Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton said she had no idea what impact it might have on Tuesday's vote. "I leave that to all of you to figure out," she said to the reporters.

Clinton then added: "Facts are important. I'm a facts person. If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words."

And with that, after a little more than two days' campaigning in Wisconsin, Clinton left the Badger State.

If the crowd of more than 5,000 at Monona Terrace in Madison was any indication, Clinton may give Obama, who leads in public polling, a run for it tomorrow. Clinton didn't pack venues the way Obama did -- his rally at the Kohl Center in Madison last week drew 17,000 -- but her supporters, many of them women, were boisterous and upbeat.

Take Kate Schleitwiler. Early Monday her mom, Caryn Schleitwiler, 50, shook Clinton's hand at St. Norbert College in De Pere, near Green Bay. Then Kate, 22, braved the snow to attend Clinton's rally at Monona Terrace at 8 p.m. Snapping photos with her digital camera and furiously waving her Clinton poster, Kate regularly yelled and occasionally shrieked ("Yeah, Hillary!") as she stood less than 100 feet from Clinton, whom she calls her "personal hero."

"I remembering seeing Hillary and asking my mom, 'Why isn't she president?' My mom said, 'Someday.' I was 8," said Kate, a recent graduate of the University of Wisconsin. "I went to Obama's rally last week. I was curious. I wanted to see what he was like. But all he gave was a flowing speech with no concrete details. I was disappointed."

Kate was one of the supporters who clapped when Clinton, as she had all day, said of her opponent: "There's a difference between speeches and solutions.... Part of the what this campaign is coming down to is that we need to know, as specific as possible, what our president will do once in office."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 19, 2008; 12:34 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Use Patrick's Words? Obama Says, 'Yes We Can'
Next: Any Given Tuesday

Comments

uhkzv mcrgd
vicodin with prozac

Posted by: vicodin with prozac | August 21, 2008 5:50 AM | Report abuse

nluvwo bzvqae dmfluaw
taper off paxil

Posted by: taper off paxil | August 21, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

yaqwrhx prue
effects effexor side

Posted by: effects effexor side | August 21, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: skin care treatment | August 18, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

iopk yzerwfd zgnamur hplm
zyprexa zydas

Posted by: zyprexa zydas | August 18, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: discontinue risperdal | August 18, 2008 5:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: elavil for chronic pain | August 17, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

pzbcrw ayfi swda euyfg
effexor at

Posted by: effexor at | August 17, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

ebtkq yixhumg xbjncta lebpch
detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

gpwq ygnmr qygl
budeprion sr and effexor

Posted by: budeprion sr and effexor | August 16, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy levitra in uk | August 16, 2008 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: hearing levitra | August 16, 2008 4:28 AM | Report abuse

uqcxrt xidntsa
salt zyban wellbutrin

Posted by: salt zyban wellbutrin | August 16, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

argjups xrsy vsjmqkg jxkfmvq
started me on 30mg buspar

Posted by: started me on 30mg buspar | August 15, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

wcfdi alwehdb
zyprexa effectivness

Posted by: zyprexa effectivness | August 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

asgvwh egrkiy othe
propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

asgvwh egrkiy othe
propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

adise
ultram cod

Posted by: ultram cod | May 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

nxqaluh mdtuq wztnyu csah
buy online ultram

Posted by: buy online ultram | May 11, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram overdose | May 10, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

cqtdgh aibmslj nmpg
fibromyalgia ultram

Posted by: fibromyalgia ultram | May 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

cqtdgh aibmslj nmpg
fibromyalgia ultram

Posted by: fibromyalgia ultram | May 10, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

ucpqzbh pnhtz ruqxmp lepts
50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

ucpqzbh pnhtz ruqxmp lepts
50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

ymnbzev ovuq ybzniuwx gqkyrhwsx sqlduak aqhoem zhejtblx zlxvnumd wdvpbn

Posted by: vcqigydf paguimoj | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

ymnbzev ovuq ybzniuwx gqkyrhwsx sqlduak aqhoem zhejtblx zlxvnumd wdvpbn

Posted by: vcqigydf paguimoj | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

dslg fkxqhd jazrbx ouzhsakn dowb svqpgti jbcvq

Posted by: zpla knbdzmvtf | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

dslg fkxqhd jazrbx ouzhsakn dowb svqpgti jbcvq

Posted by: zpla knbdzmvtf | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Gator - Obama does not have enough delegates to win the nomination - and as far as your statement about Hillary and negative comments - I can name several negative comments made by Obama and supporters - most recent, the black heckler that said Bill Clinton hit him!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

mrhamham - Obama has had a chance to expand on his ideas during debates but he clearly was unable - the views on his web site are merely the same views as the democratic party (nothing original) - it's legitimate to question him for details - we'll see tonight if he is up to the challenge!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

grassy123 - Sorry to hear you voted for Obama instead of Hillary - you along with so many others(and Wisconsinites) are a product of todays unsubstantial, feelgood, Internet and media hyped impressionable cult - instead of using brains to analyze a situation and make an intelligent decision based on fact, experience, and accomplishments - you go with what gives you the most emotional response - sad - same thing happened when Bush was elected the second time - Hillary clearly the better choice for president!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

wpost - wow, you certainly have the inside dope on who started what! Funny, it's all about Hillary's "negativity" - I've found a few negatives myself but they're about Obama - one, his racist church, two Michelle Obama saying this is the FIRST time she has ever been proud to be an American, three allowing his supporters to believe he actuall VOTED against the Iraq war, plagarizing his speeches,....

Posted by: jlkabat | February 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Thanks mrectenwald - a voice of reason in a fairytale age! Hillary for President 2008!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama is winning more votes in traditionally 'Red' states than all 3-Republican candidates combined (i.e, VA, AL, KS, CO). In some cases Obama has won more votes than both Sen-Clinton and Sen-McCain combined. With this in mind, Senator McCain couldn't possibly win the general election, this holds true even if he gains a good portion of Clinton's voters.

So you Clinton-Democrats that would vote for McCain in the general election will loose twice. Do the math!

America has grown leaps and bounds over the past 10-years, and I cannot remember (within my entire adult life) being more proud of my country than I am now! Only the greatest of nations are capable of producing superstars like Barack Obama, Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey.

Posted by: godley711 | February 20, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I have learned through long and bitter experience, that when all of the TV networks present a united front, it is time to buy a large jar of Vaseline.
Why Obama's free ride? Is this the media's way of telling us that we must suffer through four more years of Republican policies? Are they too stupid to realize that he will be able to do nothing substantial? Or are they shrewd enough to realize just that?
Why was Governor Richardson, easily the most qualified and experienced candidate, marginalized? Why was Ron Paul, the REAL candidate of change, brushed aside?
I smell a rat, and I am not unique in that respect.

Posted by: aragorn | February 19, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh wait, THIS is Obama's best speech. Sorry, I was confused!:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_sApZ4Q9Y

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Best Speech Obama ever gave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbYFKUsaKpY


Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I wrote: "Furthermore, in terms of the campaign, Hillary Clinton has won the votes of far more registered DEMOCRATS than has Obama. We believe that a lot of Republican spoilers are voting in our (stupidly open) primaries in order to defeat a truly feared change agent, Hillary Clinton."


Reply: A vote is a vote. We are all Americans.

My response: This is a DEMOCRATIC PARTY primary, not a general election. The primary process is to find the representative of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY for the general election. Hillary has won far more DEMOCRATIC votes. In several open-primary states, rightwingers have been interviewed who admitted to crossing over just to vote AGAINST Hillary, not to vote FOR Obama. In fact, asked if they would vote for Obama in the general election, they laughed and walked away. Obama has encouraged this rightwing cross-over.

Further, many of his supporters, esp. on sites such as Daily Kos and Politico.com, are exactly like the posters on such reichwing sites as Freerepublic.com. That is, they are far-right, young to middle aged men, whose politics, attitudes and just about everything else, resembles nothing more than they do rightwing attitudes, ideas and values. This is especially apparent when they recycle Republican-made anti-women, anti-Hillary, and even anti-Democratic rhetoric.

I cannot support a candidate who encourages this sort of cross-over. The Democratic party has a big tent, but it should NOT welcome sexist pigs and anti-Democratic values. The only thing these people share with Democrats is that they are voting, reputedly, for a reputed Democrat. Other than that, they have no vested interests in our beliefs.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a wonderful role model for young women: strong, accomplished, inquisitive, and opinionated - the way all mother's want their daughters.

Whether she wins or not, just having her there is a great opportunity for young women and girls to see that it is acceptable for women to do politics.

It's quite foolish of America, and America's women not be take her candidacy more seriously, and make her President.

It's unconscionable to imagine that America prefers a nation of wimpy women, or wimply men. It defies everything America stands for.

Posted by: pbr1 | February 19, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

AN AMERICAN FAIRY TALE*
[A CANADIAN DIAGNOSIS]

by: Mary Sakel

Oba-myopia has afflicted, hopefully not terminally, the American voting body and election fever is running high!

HIS ACUTE HOPENESS preaches Lofty Ideals and practices Hand-On-Healing whilst spending $800,000+ (vs Clinton's anemic $190,000) to romance superdelegates, who really don't need the money, into believing His Anorexic resume suffices!
We learneth His Chicago Ca$tle was fully bequeathed Him by Bad Lord Rezko of the Cottage View Poor Seniors 97-bed Donation Kingdom...and Obamarama's Chicago Lawfirm Lords receiveth $850,000 commission fees thanks to His forceful Senatorial voice's heavy-duty $14-million flirting of the Hopeful Taxpayer-serfs of Ill.

And He "PRECIOUS OBAMA" [as Sir Lou Dobbs of CNN calleth Him] of the Axelrod Temple Knights throws many a craftily-delivered punch at the damsel-in-distress lest she dare throw off her Juliet mask to reveal her Joan Arc proclivities to fight for what She believeth is Right for Her Kingdom. Hmm 'Not an admirable quality Strength in a Damsel' thinketh His Acute Hopeness! He is truly masterful camouflaging his jabs at the Lady of Substance and so the Media Spin Doctor- Ennablers pay no attention to his VENOMOUS VIBES and jugular jabs--and give the Media-Darling full free ride on both their print and broadcast ponies. Thusly the prince of Change wraps his frequently formidable Misogynist smears in Fanciful Oratory (which we learn he stole from Zeus knows whom!). Then, presto!, His Lady Hillary, via media Oba-myopia, transformeth into a mere 'shrill' of a She-politician, far less "likeable enough" --which serveth Cruel Precious' strategy for stealing the American Throne from its long-suffering rightful Chicagoshire Heiress!

His Hopeness surely claims the HIGHER GROUND OF METAPHYSICAL VIRTUE but, alas, has not bothered to daintily lift His Virtuous Skirts to avoid stepping on the Mud Beneath Him. And so, His Healing Arrogance, the Knight of CockyShire, feels he can ride his DON QUIXOTIC SHOWHORSE--"Empty Rhetoric" of Cheap Shots Stables--off to the Windmills of His Mind and throw into the mudrails the WORKHORSE that called his bluff. Pity!

For the Workhorse was the Only Antidote the sickly sluggish and feverish Voting serfs ever had to fight the gathering McCain Dragons' poison...and thus the Fiery RepuBeasts are fast aproaching one more time at the Kingdom's borders (not the Canadian side, PLEASE!) whilst Precious persists strumming Hymns of Ether and Songs of Vapour to sustain the Cult of Now as it gathers Mortal Momentum against the Quixotic Windmills of Change...

Mary Sakel
Toronto - CANADA

*copyright
*Libel Warning to ObamaCampaign-David Axelrod

Posted by: MSakel | February 19, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

AN AMERICAN FAIRY TALE*
[A CANADIAN DIAGNOSIS]

by: Mary Sakel

Oba-myopia has afflicted, hopefully not terminally, the American voting body and election fever is running high!

HIS ACUTE HOPENESS preaches Lofty Ideals and practices Hand-On-Healing whilst spending $800,000+ (vs Clinton's anemic $190,000) to romance superdelegates, who really don't need the money, into believing His Anorexic resume suffices!
We learneth His Chicago Ca$tle was fully bequeathed Him by Bad Lord Rezko of the Cottage View Poor Seniors 97-bed Donation Kingdom...and Obamarama's Chicago Lawfirm Lords receiveth $850,000 commission fees thanks to His forceful Senatorial voice's heavy-duty $14-million flirting of the Hopeful Taxpayer-serfs of Ill.

And He "PRECIOUS OBAMA" [as Sir Lou Dobbs of CNN calleth Him] of the Axelrod Temple Knights throws many a craftily-delivered punch at the damsel-in-distress lest she dare throw off her Juliet mask to reveal her Joan Arc proclivities to fight for what She believeth is Right for Her Kingdom. Hmm 'Not an admirable quality Strength in a Damsel' thinketh His Acute Hopeness! He is truly masterful camouflaging his jabs at the Lady of Substance and so the Media Spin Doctor- Ennablers pay no attention to his VENOMOUS VIBES and jugular jabs--and give the Media-Darling full free ride on both their print and broadcast ponies. Thusly the prince of Change wraps his frequently formidable Misogynist smears in Fanciful Oratory (which we learn he stole from Zeus knows whom!). Then, presto!, His Lady Hillary, via media Oba-myopia, transformeth into a mere 'shrill' of a She-politician, far less "likeable enough" --which serveth Cruel Precious' strategy for stealing the American Throne from its long-suffering rightful Chicagoshire Heiress!

His Hopeness surely claims the HIGHER GROUND OF METAPHYSICAL VIRTUE but, alas, has not bothered to daintily lift His Virtuous Skirts to avoid stepping on the Mud Beneath Him. And so, His Healing Arrogance, the Knight of CockyShire, feels he can ride his DON QUIXOTIC SHOWHORSE--"Empty Rhetoric" of Cheap Shots Stables--off to the Windmills of His Mind and throw into the mudrails the WORKHORSE that called his bluff. Pity!

For the Workhorse was the Only Antidote the sickly sluggish and feverish Voting serfs ever had to fight the gathering McCain Dragons' poison...and thus the Fiery RepuBeasts are fast aproaching one more time at the Kingdom's borders (not the Canadian side, PLEASE!) whilst Precious persists strumming Hymns of Ether and Songs of Vapour to sustain the Cult of Now as it gathers Mortal Momentum against the Quixotic Windmills of Change...

Mary Sakel
Toronto - CANADA

*copyright
*Libel Warning to ObamaCampaign-David Axelrod

Posted by: MSakel | February 19, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

AN AMERICAN FAIRY TALE*
(A CANADIAN DIAGNOSIS)

by: Mary Sakel

Oba-myopia has afflicted, hopefully not terminally, the American voting body and election fever is running high!

HIS ACUTE HOPENESS preaches Lofty Ideals and practices Hand-On-Healing whilst spending $800,000+ (vs Clinton's anemic $190,000) to romance superdelegates, who really don't need the money, into believing His Anorexic resume suffices!
We learneth His Castle was fully bequeathed Him by Bad Lord Rezko of the Cottage View Poor Seniors 97-bed Donation Kingdom...and Obamarama's Chicago Lawfirm Lords receiveth $850,000 commission fees thanketh to His forceful Senatorial voice's heavy-duty dedicated $14-million flirting of the Hopeful Taxpayers!

And He "PRECIOUS OBAMA" [as Sir Lou Dobbs of CNN calleth Him] of the Axelrod Temple Knights throws many a craftily-delivered punch at the damsel-in-distress lest she dare throw off her Juliet mask to reveal her Joan Arc proclivities to fight for what She beleveth is Right for Her Kingdom. Hmm 'Not an admirable quality Strength in a Damsel' thinketh His Acute Hopeness! He is truly masterful camouflaging his jabs at the Lady of Substance and so the Media Spin Doctor- Ennablers pay no attention to his VENOMOUS VIBES and jugular jabs--and give the Media-Darling full free ride on both their print and broadcast ponies. Thusly the prince of Change wraps his frequently formidable Misogynist smears in Fanciful Oratory (which we learn he stole from Zeus knows whom!). Then, presto!, His Lady Hillary, via media Oba-myopia, transformeth into a mere 'shrill' of a She-politician, far less "likeable enough" --which serveth Cruel Precious' strategy for stealing the American Throne from its long-suffering rightful Chicagoshire Heiress!

His Hopeness surely claims the HIGHER GROUND OF METAPHYSICAL VIRTUE but, alas, has not bothered to daintily lift His Virtuous Skirts to avoid stepping on the Mud Beneath Him. And so, His Healing Arrogance, the Knight of CockyShire, feels he can ride his DON QUIXOTIC SHOWHORSE--"Empty Rhetoric" of Cheap Shots Stables--off to the Windmills of His Mind and throw into the mudrails the WORKHORSE that called his bluff. Pity!

For the Workhorse was the Only Antidote the sickly sluggish and feverish Voting serfs ever had to fight the gathering McCain Dragons' poison...and thus the Fiery RepuBeasts are fast aproaching one more time at the Kingdom's borders (not the Canadian side, PLEASE!) whilst 'Precious' persists strumming Hymns of Ether and Songs of Vapour to sustain the Cult of Now as it gathers Mortal Momentum against the Quixotic Windmills of Change...

Mary Sakel
Toronto - CANADA

*copyright
*Warning to ObamaCampaign-David Axelrod

Posted by: MSakel | February 19, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

AN AMERICAN FAIRY TALE*
(A CANADIAN DIAGNOSIS)

by: Mary Sakel

Oba-myopia has afflicted, hopefully not terminally, the American voting body and election fever is running high!

HIS ACUTE HOPENESS preaches Lofty Ideals and practices Hand-On-Healing whilst spending $800,000+ (vs Clinton's anemic $190,000) to romance superdelegates, who really don't need the money, into believing His Anorexic resume suffices!
We learneth His Castle was fully bequeathed Him by Bad Lord Rezko of the Cottage View Poor Seniors 97-bed Donation Kingdom...and Obamarama's Chicago Lawfirm Lords receiveth $850,000 commission fees thanketh to His forceful Senatorial voice's heavy-duty dedicated $14-million flirting of the Hopeful Taxpayers!

And He "PRECIOUS OBAMA" [as Sir Lou Dobbs of CNN calleth Him] of the Axelrod Temple Knights throws many a craftily-delivered punch at the damsel-in-distress lest she dare throw off her Juliet mask to reveal her Joan Arc proclivities to fight for what She beleveth is Right for Her Kingdom. Hmm 'Not an admirable quality Strength in a Damsel' thinketh His Acute Hopeness! He is truly masterful camouflaging his jabs at the Lady of Substance and so the Media Spin Doctor- Ennablers pay no attention to his VENOMOUS VIBES and jugular jabs--and give the Media-Darling full free ride on both their print and broadcast ponies. Thusly the prince of Change wraps his frequently formidable Misogynist smears in Fanciful Oratory (which we learn he stole from Zeus knows whom!). Then, presto!, His Lady Hillary, via media Oba-myopia, transformeth into a mere 'shrill' of a She-politician, far less "likeable enough" --which serveth Cruel Precious' strategy for stealing the American Throne from its long-suffering rightful Chicagoshire Heiress!

His Hopeness surely claims the HIGHER GROUND OF METAPHYSICAL VIRTUE but, alas, has not bothered to daintily lift His Virtuous Skirts to avoid stepping on the Mud Beneath Him. And so, His Healing Arrogance, the Knight of CockyShire, feels he can ride his DON QUIXOTIC SHOWHORSE--"Empty Rhetoric" of Cheap Shots Stables--off to the Windmills of His Mind and throw into the mudrails the WORKHORSE that called his bluff. Pity!

For the Workhorse was the Only Antidote the sickly sluggish and feverish Voting serfs ever had to fight the gathering McCain Dragons' poison...and thus the Fiery RepuBeasts are fast aproaching one more time at the Kingdom's borders (not the Canadian side, PLEASE!) whilst 'Precious' persists strumming Hymns of Ether and Songs of Vapour to sustain the Cult of Now as it gathers Mortal Momentum against the Quixotic Windmills of Change...

Mary Sakel
Toronto - CANADA

*copyright
*Warning to ObamaCampaign-David Axelrod

Posted by: MSakel | February 19, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

AN AMERICAN FAIRY TALE*
(A CANADIAN DIAGNOSIS)

by: Mary Sakel

Oba-myopia has afflicted, hopefully not terminally, the American voting body and election fever is running high!

HIS ACUTE HOPENESS preaches Lofty Ideals and practices Hand-On-Healing whilst spending $800,000+ (vs Clinton's anemic $190,000) to romance superdelegates, who really don't need the money, into believing His Anorexic resume suffices!
We learneth His Castle was fully bequeathed Him by Bad Lord Rezko of the Cottage View Poor Seniors 97-bed Donation Kingdom...and Obamarama's Chicago Lawfirm Lords receiveth $850,000 commission fees thanketh to His forceful Senatorial voice's heavy-duty dedicated $14-million flirting of the Hopeful Taxpayers!

And He "PRECIOUS OBAMA" [as Sir Lou Dobbs of CNN calleth Him] of the Axelrod Temple Knights throws many a craftily-delivered punch at the damsel-in-distress lest she dare throw off her Juliet mask to reveal her Joan Arc proclivities to fight for what She beleveth is Right for Her Kingdom. Hmm 'Not an admirable quality Strength in a Damsel' thinketh His Acute Hopeness! He is truly masterful camouflaging his jabs at the Lady of Substance and so the Media Spin Doctor- Ennablers pay no attention to his VENOMOUS VIBES and jugular jabs--and give the Media-Darling full free ride on both their print and broadcast ponies. Thusly the prince of Change wraps his frequently formidable Misogynist smears in Fanciful Oratory (which we learn he stole from Zeus knows whom!). Then, presto!, His Lady Hillary, via media Oba-myopia, transformeth into a mere 'shrill' of a She-politician, far less "likeable enough" --which serveth Cruel Precious' strategy for stealing the American Throne from its long-suffering rightful Chicagoshire Heiress!

His Hopeness surely claims the HIGHER GROUND OF METAPHYSICAL VIRTUE but, alas, has not bothered to daintily lift His Virtuous Skirts to avoid stepping on the Mud Beneath Him. And so, His Healing Arrogance, the Knight of CockyShire, feels he can ride his DON QUIXOTIC SHOWHORSE--"Empty Rhetoric" of Cheap Shots Stables--off to the Windmills of His Mind and throw into the mudrails the WORKHORSE that called his bluff. Pity!

For the Workhorse was the Only Antidote the sickly sluggish and feverish Voting serfs ever had to fight the gathering McCain Dragons' poison...and thus the Fiery RepuBeasts are fast aproaching one more time at the Kingdom's borders (not the Canadian side, PLEASE!) whilst 'Precious' persists strumming Hymns of Ether and Songs of Vapour to sustain the Cult of Now as it gathers Mortal Momentum against the Quixotic Windmills of Change...

Mary Sakel
Toronto - CANADA

*copyright
*Warning to ObamaCampaign-David Axelrod

Posted by: MSakel | February 19, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

That attack-itis must be contagious.
It seems to be spreading from HRC to her supporters. Oh yeah, and then there is that nasty plague of desperation-itis too. Barack has shown an amazing degree of restraint when dealing with her abysmal record and her unfounded attacks.
I am a woman physician, and I support Barack Obama for my president.

Posted by: jemformw | February 19, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman.[8] When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying "The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text."[9]

Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work.[10]
Clinton stated that Feinman assisted in interviews and did some editorial drafting of "connecting paragraphs", while Clinton herself wrote the final manuscript in longhand.[2]

This led Feinman to complain at the time to Capitol Style magazine over the lack of acknowledgement.[12] In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that "New York literary circles are buzzing with vitriol over Sen. Clinton's refusal, so far, to share credit with any writer who helps on her book."

Posted by: jemformw | February 19, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Everything about Hillary Clinton is FAKE, FRAUDULENT & CORRUPT. Hillary has been running one of the most negative campaigns in the history of the Democratic Party, scaring up the ghosts of Jessie Helms for votes. Hillary has not given the American voters one compelling reason to vote for her. American will need a colonic after this primary season to cleanse itself of the flagrant stench of CLINTON STYLE POLITICS: the politics of division, destruction and victimization. While Hillary has run an ugly campaign, waving the faux feminist flag of misogyny and otherwise seeking to divide up the electorate: black vs. white, latino vs. black, young vs. old, women vs. men, OBAMA has been expanding the base of the Democratic party and building a coalition of progressives, liberals, independents, thoughtful conservatives and disaffected Republicans that will be needed to win in November. Furthermore, OBAMA has showed that he can win votes in any part of America, something that a highly negative and depressing campaign will never do. The happiest day of my life will be when Hillary pulls the plug on HILLARY CLINTON'S BLIND AMBITION TOUR 2008.

Posted by: LondonInNY | February 19, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

To message 2: What Hillary means about "your own words" is if you (Obama) are basing your whole campaign in just words, you have no experience, you are a speaker, at least, it should be your own words! She can use Mario Cuomo's quote because her campaign is not based on words. She is, definitely, a woman of "Facts".

Posted by: marthalorusso4362 | February 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"It is stunning the way Obama and his supporters are able to say vicious and vile things about Hillary and then claim she's negative. It is the most amazing tactic I've ever seen."


Kinda like how Hillary grinned while BET Johnson sleazily made insinuations about Barack? You mean that kind of vileness?
Or having surrogate Bob Kerey send out an email which lied about Barack's being taught in a Muslim school. That kind of viciousness?
Or Clinton surrogate Cuomo talking about Barack's "shucking and jiving?" That kind of vileness?

Yep, can't see why they would call her negative...Oh wait! I see! She isn't negative...she's just cowardly...hiding behind the vileness and viciousness of her supporters and surrogates.

NOW i get it!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

This article seemed more like a Clinton Press release than news.

Since Clinton is a fact person:

Fact is that Clinton's negatives have been consistently above 40% since last Oct. Persons with high negatives get people to vote against her.

Obama has rather low negatives making him the stronger candidate if all things are equal.

Clinton says she will fight this thing to the convention. There is no way she can win this thing without decimating the party for this election cycle.

If you think both candidates are nearly good, you might consider voting for Obama who can win without a big fight because he already has enough delegates to win without being contentious.

I am not saying Clinton is more contentious, only that because of poor organization has got herself into the position where she will need to use unpleasant means to get the nomination. He is in a better position and won't need to.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

ann,

Defending oneself from attack is not the same as initiating it.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

It is stunning the way Obama and his supporters are able to say vicious and vile things about Hillary and then claim she's negative. It is the most amazing tactic I've ever seen. I only hope democrats don't buy it anymore. Remember, Bill and Hillary Clinton did really good things for the poor, the middle-class, for democrats. The reason Hillary is hated by the GOP is because she insists that universal health insurance and care are moral necessities. Democrats don't and shouldn't hate her for that...that's why we should give her our vote. She speaks up for democratic principles and is undaunted by the GOP strategy of trying to make her out as some evil person.

Plus, at a time when we are engaged in two wars we need a Commander in Chief who has armed services and foreign relations experience -- not a freshman senator with neither.

Vote Hillary WI -- we are counting on you. I don't want the GOP and independents picking the democratic nominee -- I want the dems to do it.

Posted by: ann_e_gonzalez | February 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"I have to go. That doesn't mean that I am abdicating my position."

We understand. Royalty never like to abdicate. They have to be tossed off their thrones...by red-blooded American revolutionaries.

Please give our regards to Queen Hillary and the rest of the royal court.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Nice chatting mrectenwald! Hillary for President!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Unlike Obama and his supporters, I cannot afford to talk about what I'm going to do all day. I have to actually do things. Bye!

As for Obama's landmark legislation idea, that one really gave me a chuckle. That's a joke, sort of like his nuclear "regulation" legislation--toothless.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I can understand your argument. Who would want to represent the FUTURE of the Democratic party, when they could represent the PAST.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I have to go. That doesn't mean that I am abdicating my position (unlike Obama, who does).

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"Obama and "landmark legislation" have no place in the same sentence, that is, without a "not."

If Obama had anything to do with it, he was rolled into the bill by senior members trying to hand him a record. That much is clear."

The only thing that is clear is your inability to research the candidates' records in the Senate. Your proven inability to be truthful exposes you for the unreliable source that you are.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Furthermore, in terms of the campaign, Hillary Clinton has won the votes of far more registered DEMOCRATS than has Obama. We believe that a lot of Republican spoilers are voting in our (stupidly open) primaries in order to defeat a truly feared change agent, Hillary Clinton."


A vote is a vote. We are all Americans. In Virginia, Barack got more total votes than Hillary and McCain combined.

REAL post polling in Wisconsin is revealing that Republicans are crossing over to vote for both Hillary and Obama.

The only candidate using negative personal ads is Hillary. She is proven to be the one who would do anything to win.

Time to leave Hillaryland!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama and "landmark legislation" have no place in the same sentence, that is, without a "not."

If Obama had anything to do with it, he was rolled into the bill by senior members trying to hand him a record. That much is clear.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"But the devil is in the details"

You can say that again...and the Clintons certainly know their details.
However, micromanagement is not a highly prized leadership quality....ask Carter.

But hey, Hillary is your candidate! Whatever you say!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, in terms of the campaign, Hillary Clinton has won the votes of far more registered DEMOCRATS than has Obama. We believe that a lot of Republican spoilers are voting in our (stupidly open) primaries in order to defeat a truly feared change agent, Hillary Clinton. Obama has also thrown THEM some rhetorical bones in the form of Reagan praise (however convoluted) and other coded language--like saying that the auto WORKERS have to change, rather than the auto MANUFACTURERS (who need to change their damn products before the earth is unfit for human habitation). Look, we are agreed, I HOPE, about the ends we seek. But, we are very much at odds about the means to get them. I see NOTHING about Obama that leads me to believe that he can or even wants to achieve what we need. He seems willing to do anything to get elected (ironically he charge Clinton with the same), including encouraging known far rightwing voters to vote for him to get rid of Hillary. THAT is what is shameful and that is what will destroy our party, our ideals and likewise, our REAL chance for change.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Me thinks thou dost protest too much!"

LOL. Me thinks not.

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

Time to leave Hillaryland!

Barack passed a landmark bill in his first two years in the US Senate...What landmark bill has Hillary authored and passed? While she wasn't sending our soldiers to neeedless death in Iraq?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

mreectenwald,

Recognizing enemies and inciting them are very different. It's possible to do one without the other, although the Clintons are certainly adept at both.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Well whanger - you seem to think Obama has won the nomination already so I guess you needed reminding of that insight!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"To you that think being a great speaker is enough - Hitler, Jim Jones, and Sadam Hussein were charismatic and great speakers and look what they did! Being a great speaker is nothing without the record to back your words and Obama just doesn't have the credentials."


Doesn't anyone take logic anymore??

Hitler first claimed that he was a man of "solutions." Does that mean Hillary, the "solution" candidate is Hitler?

Churchill was a great speaker, so was FDR, so was Lincoln...so what?

Barack has an oratorical gift. He also has a solid record of creating change in both the Illinois and US Senate.

Click your heals twice and you too can escape Hillaryland and all their fairytales.

Yes, you can!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 writes:

"Obama is not running his campaign on rhetoric. He uses rhetoric, brilliantly, to explain his campaign and reawaken the hope in all of us ...which is essential if we are each to work rebuilding this nation of ours in non-partisan cooperation. His accomplishments in both the US Senate and the Illinois Senate are shimmering examples, not shams."

The problem with his reawakening of hope with "brilliant rhetoric" is that he has done this in his career, and later has acted as a conciliator rather than a change agent. In the end, he has people feeling good about getting screwed. I would rather not feel good at all. How about you? I don't want baseless feelings of "hope." I want reality-based solutions that acknowledge the difficulties, that recognize the enemies (and they are not goin to just go away under a charm spell), and that have a demonstrated leader behind them, someone with a RECORD of accmplishing such things. Obama falls FAR short on this scale.

"The claims are neither serious nor brilliant. They are specious and dirty. Desperate acts from a losing campaign which is out of ideas, out of money and out of decency. Your baseless accusation of sham redounds to your own shame."

Me thinks thou dost protest too much!

They are serious enough to merit the discussion of many people on this board and elsewhere. They are serious because there is no record to substantiate the rhetorical claims, and now, the rhetoric itself has been found to be demonstrably RECYCLED. Perhaps the slogan for his campaign should now read:

Obama '08: RECYCLING We Can Believe In!

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Comment: Republican dreams come true. Just when they thought all was lost; along comes Barak.

The perfect storm continues to brew...

Yes I am still here if anyone wants to discuss issues and ideas instead of attacking character. That is how we change politics not by hype and hyperbole.

I have not heard a word lately about universal health care or any other issue of real substance. If democrats do not win on the issues they will not win.


Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

ivana from Mass - love what you say about the mentality of the Obama supporters - I feel they are mindless lemmings as well!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for that insight, jlk.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger - It ain't over til the fat lady sings!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Love you comments mrectenwald!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

mrectenwald,

1. Does Enron ring any bells? How involved was the Clinton administration with this catastrophe? Did Rubin attempt to influence the financial security ratings of the company?


2. The accusation of plagiarism is blatantly disingenuous. You can dress it up and justify it all you like, that doesn't change the fact that it's a red herring.

3. You can characterize the argument that leadership traits are important as "specious", but that doesn't make it so. More importantly, most of the American people don't think so either.

Claiming a distortion isn't a distortion, doesn't change reality, as much as you might wish it did.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

To you that think being a great speaker is enough - Hitler, Jim Jones, and Sadam Hussein were charismatic and great speakers and look what they did! Being a great speaker is nothing without the record to back your words and Obama just doesn't have the credentials.

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

grassy123 writes:

"Your argument seems to be based on the premise that Obama's campaign is 'based mostly on rhetoric.'

"Just because he is able to articulate his positions and ideas much better than Hillary does not mean his campaign is based on rhetoric. It means he can communicate more effectively than Hillary. That is a sign of a good leader and it seems odd that Hillary supporters use that as a strike against Obama."

I don't think that he IS a better communicator than Hillary Clinton. I believe he's been adept at keeping things abstract and general. But the devil is in the details, of which he has provided few. Nor has he shown in the past that he has done much to make the kinds of concrete changes that he proposes to be the agent of. Hillary has.

"Furthermore, it is insulting and a bit condescending for you to basically state that all the people voting for Obama are too ignorant to separate style from substance. Just because you have different opinions doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter than everyone else."

I am talking about the record of Obama that few of his supporters seem to think is important enough to actually investigate. Contempt prior to investigation is no worse than acceptance prior to investigation. I have no contempt for Obama and I did not discount him in advance. Rather, I have investigated his record and his background and I found a lot of holes in both. His legislative record is paltry at best. His political history includes involvement with a known and now indicted political fixer that with fresh issues as 2005 (house deal).

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary's campaign:
1. You cannot claim to be about "change," when all you are changing is the date at the top of an old speech. If your rhetoric for "change" is old, then it's not much of a change."

---

First, it wasn't a speech. It was 3 minutes of a 40 minute speech. The so-called "plagiarism" involved 2 words: "Just words." The speech itself was all Barack's. The change he is calling for is real.

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

"2. If our rhetoric is portable, and can be moved from one campaign to another, perhaps it is a bit disingenuous. Perhaps it's a bit cynical to adopt a series of slogans from another campaign while acting as if they are unique to your own."

---

All rhetoric is portable. Hillary uses lines and quotes from her husband Bill's many campaigns. So what? If I quote a Cicero speech from ancient Rome, does it make it any less true if it is appropriate to our own times?

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

"3. If one is running a campaign based mostly on rhetoric, and that rhetoric is portable and not 'unique' to the campaign, then the whole thing begins to look like a sham."

---

Obama is not running his campaign on rhetoric. He uses rhetoric, brilliantly, to explain his campaign and reawaken the hope in all of us ...which is essential if we are each to work rebuilding this nation of ours in non-partisan cooperation. His accomplishments in both the US Senate and the Illinois Senate are shimmering examples, not shams.


The claims are neither serious nor brilliant. They are specious and dirty. Desperate acts from a losing campaign which is out of ideas, out of money and out of decency. Your baseless accusation of sham redounds to your own shame.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

CliffinWA - do not fear - Hillary will be the Democrat nominee and will then beat McCain in the Fall! She will be our next president!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

grassy123 and other Obama supporters- Obama's campaign speeches are based on rhetoric not substance - just listen! Why do you think Hillary wants to debate him? She wants to show the American people she knows what she is talking about, she's done the research, made the plans, crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Obama does not fair well when debating her because he lacks the experience and the knowledge.

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger writes:
>The point Obama's campaign is making is >this:

>1. Demonizing an opponent's campaign as >being empty rhetoric, using empty >rhetoric rings as hollow.

Not really, esp. when Obama has also lifted her economic stimulus package months after she released it. Her charge that his campaign is empty involves two subpoints: a. He hasn't any record that backs up his positions and in fact his record is one of abdication and conciliation to the disadvantage of the people in favor of corporate donors like Exelon; b. He has now been shown to be using rhetoric that isn't even UNIQUE to the campaign. Now everyone who hears him speak has to ask themselves, is this an advertising slogan or a real conviction?

>2. Accusing someone of plagiarism, when >no serious person would draw that >conclusion, suggests a disigenuous attack.

Well, he has adopted slogans and parts of speeches from another campaign. That doesn't mean he will be sued. Plagiarism is an ethical, not a legal matter. And the plagiarized doesn't have to press the point. But the point is that for a campaign in which rhetoric is the emperor, a borrowed rhetoric means that the emperor has no clothes.

>3. Experience alone does not magically >confer the leadership traits necessary to >lead: Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld come >to mind.

Specious argument. A record of doing things positively in line with the principles of the Democratic party is indeed important. He has no such record. Hillary has a long one.

>The Clinton's strategy is blatantly and >obviously an attack that distorts reality.

I disagree strongly. Rather, it is an attack that attempts to correct a distorted "reality."


Posted by:

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If by "reason" you mean "false premises" and "illogical inferences", then you are correct, jlk.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

mrectenwald - Hear, Hear - your voice is the voice of reason!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

mrectenwald:

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that Obama's campaign is "based mostly on rhetoric."

Just because he is able to articulate his positions and ideas much better than Hillary does not mean his campaign is based on rhetoric. It means he can communicate more effectively than Hillary. That is a sign of a good leader and it seems odd that Hillary supporters use that as a strike against Obama.

Furthermore, it is insulting and a bit condescending for you to basically state that all the people voting for Obama are too ignorant to separate style from substance. Just because you have different opinions doesn't necessarily mean you are smarter than everyone else.

Posted by: grassy123 | February 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I also think that the charge has teeth because of Obama's record of saying one thing in terms of legislation, while eventually doing another. That was the case with the nuclear bill that he gutted to eventually favor Exelon and the Republicans. While talking a big game about how the nuclear industry must be regulated, he ended up pushing a piece of legislation that took all the teeth out of the demands, turning them into requests for voluntary submission.

Also, there is simply the matter of a slim record and a political background where some dirt is buried and has yet to be touched.

There is a reason why the Corporate Media is pushing Obama over Clinton, and that cannot be good for the people.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I think once Hillary is disposed of the issue of qualification, competence and experience will result in another republican victory. Many democrats do not have the excuse of youth in believing polls suggesting Obama has the better chance. We should all know the most pressing concern come November will be who is best qualified to be commander in chief and McCain is already staking claim to that moniker. Have you seen his "Commander in Chief" ad? I have.
The perfect storm continues to brew toward the total destruction of the Democratic Party
A divided and fractured party in a partisan, divided and fractured country.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

mrectenwald,

The point Obama's campaign is making is this:

1. Demonizing an opponent's campaign as being empty rhetoric, using empty rhetoric rings as hollow.

2. Accusing someone of plagiarism, when no serious person would draw that conclusion, suggests a disigenuous attack.

3. Experience alone does not magically confer the leadership traits necessary to lead: Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld come to mind.

The Clinton's strategy is blatantly and obviously an attack that distorts reality.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

granta - you and others refuse to look at Hillary's record - she can't escape the fact that her husband is an ex-president and why should she? - Bill has valuable experience to share with her - she said it best in one of her debates "I'm the one here debating not Bill" - she has accomplishments of her own and to discount those is a lie!
You make sweeping accusations in your post! For instance, what does Hillary single-handedly have to do with the mounting deaths in Iraq? If anyone is to blame, it is Bush and his administration for lying to Congress, the world and the American people!
Hillary has withstood insults from people like you for years and she has done it with grace and temperance! Do you know the statement "what doesn't kill you will make you stronger"? Hillary is a prime example of this. She has been dragged though the mud by the media, some republicans, witchhunters, right-wing conservatists and Obama supporters like you and she always stays afloat. That's a quality I would like to see in a president! Hillary action, accomplishments and change (from the staus quo)!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The Rise and Fall of the 4th Estate
For many years now I have been concerned with the news media, especially television, not accepting the responsibility to be fair arbitrators of information. Ratings and entertainment are more important than educating the electorate. I now feel manipulated so the press can have a horse race. Any objective analysis of political news coverage will show the so called "free press" is stumping for Obama. Pay particular attention to the graphics during Super-Tuesday election coverage emphasizing Obama wins. The legitimate issue of qualification and competence to be POTUS is being ignored and discouraged as is policy differences. Chris Matthews (Feb.9) had a guest, who happens to be black, say he questions Obama as a "viable and serious" candidate; they could not get his face off the screen fast enough, the same for the other guy who try to say it was silly to believe polls today can tell what will happen in November. My question is do you think this will continue through November? Will the news machine try to salvage credibility?

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The point that Hillary's campaign is making involves these items:

1. You cannot claim to be about "change," when all you are changing is the date at the top of an old speech. If your rhetoric for "change" is old, then it's not much of a change.

2. If our rhetoric is portable, and can be moved from one campaign to another, perhaps it is a bit disingenuous. Perhaps it's a bit cynical to adopt a series of slogans from another campaign while acting as if they are unique to your own.

3. If one is running a campaign based mostly on rhetoric, and that rhetoric is portable and not 'unique' to the campaign, then the whole thing begins to look like a sham.

That's the claim and it's quite serious. This is a brilliant move by the Clinton campaign. I think that the fallout is going to be significant, because Obama is running on a lot of hot air. His record is paltry at best and his rhetoric, if borrowed, will lose its lustre fast.

Posted by: mrectenwald | February 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The Woman Has Absolutely No Shame,

I must comment on the following statement uttered, while drinking a small glass of red WHINE, by the factual Hillary Clinton " "Facts are important. I'm a facts person. If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words."

IF you are only about words, I would agree yet, I believe this is projection of the highest order for it is Clinton's candidacy that comes closest to this statement. How about the word 'experience', where are the facts to support this?

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN , the great senator from NY said 'you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitle to your own facts." Yet Clinton is a facts person and the following are a list of a few opinions the Clinton's have spun as facts:

her involvement in the Irish Peace process. When did she come up with this one?
the first U.S. Senator to call Darfur genocide. What about Finegold?
The spelling of her name; she was named after an unknown beekeeper in New Zealand?
In Iraq,civilian deaths have risen." Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006 ... facts matter?
Ready on day one: to do what? No one better throw her a curve for if it is not planned she's paralyzed. Look at her campaign after she was suprised by Obama.

And Barack Obama's campaign is not based merely on words but on his OWN experience not his spouse's. He is brilliant and well educated, she is merely well educated. He is a great inspirational speaker and a great organizer. She now appears to be neither. What Hillary doesn't understand is the concept of Multi-talented which is odd as she has been married to such a person; didn't she notice? Why must it always be either or?

james d granata


Posted by: jganymede | February 19, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

My wife has been a doctor for 6 years. The whole time I've been right there supporting her and living with her. Does that mean I can claim to have 6 years of experience working in the medical field?

I'm sorry that Hillary's time helping Walmart doesn't add much to her resume as far as I'm concerned. As a progressive, having Walmart as part of the "experience" you're touting does more harm than good.

Posted by: grassy123 | February 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Rather than giving in to mass hysteria over a man who has not yet earned the title of "new and better" maybe we should form national support groups for those who have almost survived eight years of the most horribly negative and depressing president anyone could have ever imagined. Then we can hand the next presidency to someone (Hillary Clinton) who has spent the past thirty five years preparing for this chance to make things truly better for the country and the world.

Anne Milligan"

--------

Well, Ann, if you could make an argument beyond the strident feminist one you do make: i.e., we should elect Hillary because she is a woman and women are "essentially" better than men, you might begin to persuade.


As you wrote in a NYT blog last month:

Senator Clinton was able INTUIT what was going on there, and use her brilliant mind to respond. Unfortunately, the men were so intimidated by her that they resorted to a typical reactive behavior which is to gang up with someone to intimidate the "other". In that one moment, I realized why my blood had boiled every time I heard or read the media describe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as basically "the same". They are not the same at all. He is a man and she is a woman. The most recent scientific studies on the brain strongly suggest that there really are differences in the brains of men and women. This would seem totally irrelevant if it were not for the fact that we have just endured seven years of cowboy politics by a "man" who has almost decimated our standing in the world, created divisions everywhere, stirred up "us against them" scenarios every chance he's had, and cast us all into a morose national depression. WE need women in leadership now more than ever."


So...it's women vs men, eh? We should vote for Hillary JUST because she is a woman...not for all those bad men...all those gunslingers?

Doesn't sound too mentally healthy to me. Sounds like sexist anger.

Let's look beyond genitalia!

BTW, how do you , psychotherapist, defend someone like Hillary who enables a serial womanizer? What example is that to women? What messages does that send? Or are some women (bimbos?) sacrificial offerings on the altar of political expedience? Maybe their brains are quite up to snuff either?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

jmv,

That's rich. Teeing up a debate about the candidates spouses for Obama seems a rather risky strategy.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Frm a previous poster:
how about these
1. your soul is borken, only obama can save your soul
2. I am proud of this country for the first time

Posted by: yanyanju | February 19, 2008 01:12 PM
------------------------------------------
And add to those from a speech she gave at UCLA:
1. I am married to the only person in this race who can heal this nation.
2.There is no one in this race who can claim that much committment to helping people.
3. Barak is one of the most briliant men you will ever meet in your lifetime.

But we don't hear too much of her statement that this will be the only run at the WH that the Obamas take and there will not be a second chance, or that she was surprised to hear that Obama had accelerated his plans for the presidency. To me, that doesn't sound like too much committment to save the US or the world as she calims Obama will do. Doesn't sound like MLK either giving up on his first defeat. But it does sound opportunistic in knowing that his best chance was running against Hillary who a lot of people didn't like and that his future chances may not be so good.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

So, Hillary supporters, working Wal-Mart counts as public service, but working DIRECTLY with poor people on the south side of Chicago does not count? Working as a civil-rights attorney does NOT count?
At least Obama has also taught Constitutional Law, which will be quite helpful when we try to untangle the mess the Bush administration has left us with.

Posted by: kirstin | February 19, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary in office will be more years of the same type politics we already have. I will vote for Obama because he is our best hope to break from the politics of the past and, at least, try to do this government thing a different way. Hillary supporters are mean when they are losing. Its kinda funny to see it, though...and they call us Obama-maniacs...silly rabbits.

Posted by: dolarbil | February 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

kansas28 is not a bigot/racist...he is ignorant. Americans, black, white and other, have voted for white males every election. We Americans are not as racially focused as kansas28 wants us to believe we are. Ignorance actively recruits others to be ignorant so they can focus on the different degrees of ignorance instead of realizing they are all still ignorant. If Hillary gets 70% of the white vote in WI or TX....does that mean all the white people who voted for her did so because she is white?

Posted by: dolarbil | February 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

From a previous poster:
justmyvoice - I don't know where you get your information but like so many of the Obamaniacs you don't need facts! Hillary Clinton has tons of more experience than Obama - 8 years in the White house and more years as a senator and more years in public service (she's been in public service longer, duh!) So get the facts straight and quit whinning!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 12:50 PM
----------------------------
Excuse me but I am a Hillary supporter. I would much rather have her in the WH than Obama who would make a great VP until he gains more experience than just oratory skills.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

ivana,

That made me laugh! Too funny. I don't think it's a strong campaign strategy, but it IS funny.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

OMG! Is anyone else sick of Obama's preachy rhetoric - in Massachusetts...we had the same preaching with Deval Patrick. I knew it looked familiar. By the way, Patrick doesn't even come close to delivering the 'MEAT'...since getting elected. I really hope people finally wake up and realize they're being lulled into submission.

Posted by: ivana_perry | February 19, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Another interesting article about policy plagiarism.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/what_about_policy_plagiarism.html
"That goes on a lot in politics, and goes both ways -- just last week, the Clinton campaign claimed that Obama stole pieces of his new plan to revive the economy from Clinton. But one of the most glaring examples of the practice involves Clinton's claim -- dating all the way back to her 2000 NY campaign for the Senate -- that she "championed" the Children's Health Insurance Program (known as "S-Chip") and deserves credit for getting health insurance for 6 miilion kids."

"Kennedy is the actual champion of the program, in the sense of having sponsored it and having gotten it passed in the Senate. And this weekend, at a news briefing at which he asserted that Hillary was distorting Obama's health plan, Kennedy also brought up the Children's Health Insurance Program."

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The person interviewd in the above article is apparently too lazy to go to Obama's website and read his detailed 6-page economic policy proposal. It is as though Hillary Clinton supporters would prefer that Obama read his detailed policy whitepapers monotonously instead of drum up enthusiasm? "Vote Hillary Clinton for Sleepier Speeches" is not a compelling campaign slogan. Am I missing something?

Posted by: katefranklin60 | February 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is working to push visibility and accountability in government
Coburn and Obama Announce Launch of Website to Track Federal Spending
http://obama.senate.gov/press/071213-coburn_and_obam/
Where Americans Can See Where Their Money Goes
http://www.usaspending.gov/

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 19, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that the cries of "plagiarism" came out right before the WI primary, when similar quotes had been used 9 months ago.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/words_obamapatrick_iii.html
"The story goes on to describe how Obama had used a similar quote in an interview with The New Republic. Which means that this issue -- if it is one -- goes back in the public record for nine months. It's been sitting there.

We heard Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson say on morning TV today that he had never heard this particular Obama "riff" before Saturday night. But if his research operation was up to snuff, he must have read it before. And they certainly were quick to try turn this particular molehill into a mountain when the opportunity arose....

It's comforting to know that even though the candidate is focused on issues that matter to working Americans, her operatives aren't."

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 19, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

kirstin - Obama has 20 years experience? Ha! Can you add? Hillary has been in public service since after her college days so let's say her mid-twenties - she is now in her late fifties. Obama is what? early forties? - tell me how he has 20 years public service? He has only been a US senator for just over 1 or 2 years and an Illinois Senator for 8 - so that's around 10 - so where does the other 10 years experience come from, please tell? Even if we begin to count Hillary's experience since her 8 years in the White house plus her 2 terms as a Senator, that's 16 years! Do the math!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

how about these
1. your soul is borken, only obama can save your soul
2. I am proud of this country for the first time

Posted by: yanyanju | February 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

justmyvoice -sorry I thought you were the one posted AGAINST Hillary's experience - OOPS! Hillary for President!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Ironically, those voting for Hillary are of lower intelligence and lower education."

Typical type of statement by an Obama supporter. Pretty smug and uptight. I am educated and have a fair amount of intelligence but I go for Hillary. I may not be blue collar, but my parents and family are. Hillary has a definite appeal to me. She is a good choice for the Economy and Health Care. Universal Health Care is an idea whose time has come. When she tried the first time, we still had the best medical care in the world by several measures. Now we do not. The cost of health care is also affecting the competivieness of our corporations.

Posted by: hdimig | February 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

So, Hillary has "32 years of experience" including living in the White House for 8 years. Obama, who is younger has 20. By this bizarre logic, John McCain must be the most qualified for public service.
He's 72, served in the military and the Senate. Clearly only the actual number of years qualifies as experience, not the quality of experience.
And while I'm on it, why all the victimhood for poor Hillary? She's been the "victim" of right wing hitmen for years. So I'm supposed to vote for her out of sympathy for suffering right-wing attacks? How does that qualify as experience? The only experience that I can see she's gained from that was how to play dirty politics too.
Maybe we'd like to see a more civil Washington DC. Maybe we'd like to have an administration coming in that hasn't already dug the trenches, sent the spies, and armed their foot soldiers for all-out ideological warfare.
She's divisive (just look at us poor Dems), she's shrill, cold, and calculating.
The ONLY reason she's still married to her brilliant yet philandering husband is that she could never have run for senate or president if she divorced him. I don't get why all the older women still love this woman. Any sensible, empowered woman would have kicked their own husband to the curb 20 years ago for the shennanigans Bill pulls.
Hillary did what Princess Diana could not do. She kept her mouth shut to save her own power base and turned a blind eye to her husband's extra-curricular activities.
What else will she ignore to become president and stay president?

Posted by: kirstin | February 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who's falling behind would run negative campaigns. If you switch position between these two, you'd see Obama initiate negatives. In fact, he has been running negative campaigns since the most recent debate but you don't see big headlines like "Obama attacks Clinton" anywhere! The media has been trying to protect him in some ways and it is not fair! We all borrow words everyday, BUT, "if your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words". It's naive to think it the same between Clinton's borrowed words like "yes we can", "I'm fired up and ready to go" (btw, we say that kind of lines all the time as regular citizens & it's not Obama's lines as he claimed) and Obama's copying the words or even speeches - his candidacy is based on those words to attract voters and they gotta be his own. One or two words are fine, or even 4 words, but he basically copied the whole line and styles. That triggered the question: Does he really write his own speeches? I know he got speech writers, they wouldn't tell the public the truth how much is done by Obama until one day if one of them got stumped by Obama and they decided to come out bash him by telling the truth. Who knows if it is him or the speech writer or his campaign adviser inspirational. The worst case: a person gets the nomination largely based on the speeches full of inspirational lines that have been said by many of our ancestors. I don't think Patrick's lines are the only lines he has borrowed.

Posted by: snakebaby | February 19, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

jlkabat,

I've not argued that they didn't champion the causes of black Americans. What I argued was that, when they saw Obama actually making the nomination a serious challenge, they were willing to sink to the race-baiting tactics they'd spent their careers opposing. In the same way they sold out much of the Democratic party during Bill's tenure, they were willing to sell out a strong constituency for the possibility of political gain.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

whanger - I'm in disbelief that you deny that the Clintons have fought for equality their entire time in public service! You are not looking at their record and like so many black Americans, merely are siding with a man that happens to have black skin not even knowing (or caring) if he truly will champion your "cause". Who's the true racist?

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

whanger - I'm in disbelief that you deny that the Clintons have not fought for equality their entire time in public service! You are not looking at their record and like so many black Americans, merely are siding with a man that happens to have black skin not even knowing (or caring) if he truly will champion your "cause". Who's the true racist?

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Why all the vitriol by both camps against each other? It seems that the Clintonites think they are smarter, or wiser, than the Obama supporters ("wake up?" really?). This attack on Obama's supporters seems both petty and condescending. Moreover, for you Clinton people, it's not going to win you any adherents. When was the last time you did something "just because."

The bottom line to all Democrats is that we need to win the White House back. Fighting each other now is unhelpful, becuase we just end up disliking each other. Come the general election, it would be sad for me to see Clinton's people not come out for Obama, or vice versa, because of this primary silliness.

Remember who the enemy is! It's fine to support a primary candidate, but do so with good, fact-based arguments rather than condescension. I mean that for everyone. Please.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The reality of selecting a top executive is this: experience alone does not make a good executive. The ability to inspire individual action does. The ability to resolve conflict rather than escalate it does. And, the ability to coalesce opposing forces does. Those are not Hillary's strong points. In contrast, they ARE Obama's strong points.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Kansas28 - you are a bigot!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

explorers,

When African Americans observed the subtle race-baiting tactics of the Clintons, they turned in large measure from Clinton supporters to Obama supporters. The tactics were subtle because they were devised in such a way that they could deny them. However, those who had been targets of these tactics their entire lives, recognized them clear as day, and recognized the denials as disingenuous.

In contrast, the Obama campaign has not engaged in similar tactics relative to gender.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

justmyvoice - I don't know where you get your information but like so many of the Obamaniacs you don't need facts! Hillary Clinton has tons of more experience than Obama - 8 years in the White house and more years as a senator and more years in public service (she's been in public service longer, duh!) So get the facts straight and quit whinning!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Lets not tiptoe around another issue. It looks like racial pride trumps everything. African Americans want and deserve to be treated like anyone else. But when it comes to politics all that means nothing. All that the Clintons accomplished or attempted to accomplish on behalf of the African American community means nothing. Racial difference now means everything.

When Jesse Jackson Jr. asked a Democratic Party Official if he wanted to be the person who would obstruct the first real opportunity for a black man to become president his reply should have been what about the first woman.

All this is human of course and I think we have two very good candidates but what the African American community may have started with their overwhelming support of Obama will be a white back lash. Racism is alive and well in this country and the thin veneer covering it is less than skin deep.

Posted by: explorers100 | February 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I find it offensive to label Wisconsin as a beer drinking, non educated state. My brilliant cardiologist is a Wisconsin native and a woman. My brother is a Wisconsin veterinarian.

All that aside - Obama may win the nomination and then we go through four years of on-the-job training. This man is not qualified to be president. He has benefitted from a devoted press while Senator Clinton has taken swipe after swipe from the press and is still standing.

Don't let the columnists or fancy speeches choose your president.

Wake up America and make history with the brilliant first female president.

Posted by: Kansas28 | February 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton says she is a "facts" person but she failed to look at the facts when she voted on the war in Iraq! She has been a part of the Washington mess that has all but destroyed our economy and quality of life for the past 15 years. She claims to be for the low income and middle class families but her vote for the bankruptcy law favored big business while it has devastated thousands of low income and middle class families. Her experience as part of the worst government in history is not what we need in the White House! Her "action" over words has not been in the best interest of the majority of Americans and her voting record (not the one on her web site) shows little benefit to the nation as a whole.

Posted by: DAlnB | February 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

For the first time, Hillary is not being paid by Bill for his ..... She got the New York Senate seat as a gift from the cheater.

What did she do in the Senate? Nothing much.

Obama who never got anything for free in his life, worked his behind to get substantive legislation passed in the Senate:

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee),
** STOP FRAUD ACT (before subprime became an issue)


Posted by: tchanta | February 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

To end the "experience" argument once and for all:

Clinton seems to count her years of public service AND her time in the WH as 1st Lady as belonging to her 35 years of experience. This doesn't mean she is claiming to have been president for 35 years; this doesn't mean she claims to have been in the Senate for 35 years. It means that she has been working for 35 years, in one way or another, toward advancing the causes that are now central to her presidential campaign.

Her time as 1st Lady DOES count as relevant experience on her resume, and I think that this is what she means when she speaks of being "ready on day 1." She knows how things work in the White House because, like it or not, she has seen it firsthand.

She will not need any adjustment period at the beginning of her term, she will need less time to assemble a strong cabinet and she will be able to circumvent a lot of potential impediments (everything from red tape to yes men) from having watched her husband in the oval office. This is what "ready on day one" means.

We are so fortunate enough to get the chance to elect a non-2nd-term president who already thoroughly understands the ins and outs of the executive branch. I can't believe that our country is in danger of blowing that chance.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 19, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

alterego1 wrote:
My point, if you'd read it, was that some people seem to be choosing to support Hillary merely because of her gender. This support seems to me just as petty as those who you deride who support Obama merely because he speaks well. But, and here's my point, at least those who support Obama because he speaks well have a reason rather than an arbitrary accident of birth to justify their choice.
------------------------------------------
For those who choose to go with Obama because he speaks well seem to have not much else to fall back on. His time in the Senate has not been illustrious, he got a pass there after running against Alan Keyes and taking his democratic mate to court to get her out of the race, he ran for the House and lost, and his time in the Illinois senate is about what he has. If you want to class his community work over that which Hillary did when she was out of law school that is fine if that is all you have. But also having the media pundits decide that the black community en masse is voting for him doesn't bode well for those who complain that Hillary is getting support mainly because she is a woman. And why is it that it seems as if it less worthy or denigrating for a woman to support a woman than for a black to support a black or for someone to choose Obama because "he speaks well"? Sounds as if any reason would suffice rather than choosing a woman. But then of course those who cry out will say "not this woman", as if that excuses it too. Sorry, but for the rhetoric of change, and hope and being bipartisan and changing Washington, I listened to that 8 years ago. I didn't like the results and I am not taking that line alone again and expecting any different results.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Outstanding Legislator Awards from Campaign for Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998

Who is that? Obama!

Posted by: tchanta | February 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the best choice for president - she is consistent in her message and record, she is a hard worker, she is witty, she is resilient, she is charming, intelligent, savvy, and informed. I will be voting for her and I hope other Americans will do the right thing and finally elect a president who can get business taken care off! Hillary for President 2008!

Posted by: jlkabat | February 19, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Isallard,

OK. I know you hate the question, but you cannot seem to answer it: what has Clinton done? Specifically, since you seem to think her years as First Lady have some relevance on the "experience" question, tell me - what did she accomplish there? I know she observed things, sure, but after the health care debacle of '94, what did she actually do? Observation is one thing, but for someone who makes everything of her experience, she should actually have some.

And as for Obama, he does. Have you looked up his years in the Illinois state Senate? Have you seen the bi-partisan bills he's sponsored in the U.S. Senate? Assertions of are little use if they don't have support.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Cliff, wrote:
We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public. What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November?
----------------------

I totally agree with you on this point. Why should republicans (or even ndependents) be allowed to crossover for a day and decide who becomes the democratic nominee. And who says what the motive is when they do it. No, under the present system there has to be some sort of checks and balance with superdelegates when it appears that a candidate gets deligates towards the final democratic pick in perhaps totally red states with crossovers voting perhaps on questionnable motives.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

When did being first lady start to qualify as experience?

Posted by: grassy123 | February 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Cliff,

Again you are intentionally distorting essential details of the story.

First, counting FL or MI AFTER the fact would be blatently unfair and viewed as cheating.

Second, the argument about superdelegates is NOT about changing current rules, it's about the potential political fallout of having the superdelegates decide the election contrary to the delegates.

Third, a delegate system inherently creates the possibility of delegate counts not being consistent with the overall popular vote, but not the popular vote within a voting district. If this is a problem, we should address it and change the rules for future elections. In contrast, the superdelegate system allows elected officials within a state to vote contrary to the popular vote within their own voting district, contrary to the popular vote within the state, and contrary to the delegate distribution per candidate. You might find this acceptable and reasonable. I personally, find it problematic.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I find it a bit insulting that because I voted for Obama, some people assume that I have just been swept away by his rhetoric and am ignorant on the issues. I am one of those pesky college educated voters that is very well-informed on the issues.

Why can we not raise the level of discourse and stop assuming that everyone who chooses not to agree with your particular opinions is ignorant?

Posted by: grassy123 | February 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

As far as Hillary's competency over Obamas. She has been in the White House. Don't tell me she doesn't have a little bit more knowledge than the average person of what that job requires and how it should be done. She has been in public service a long time very near the executive level. Don't tell me she doesn't know more than the average person. And I won't bother answering the question, "What has Hillary done?" because it has been asked and answered millions of times. The information is out there if anyone cares to look.

I am offended by a candidates who thinks we should trust him to do the most important job in the world with 2 years experience! There is no magic to Obama and God help us if we are once again carried away by hysteria and put someone in the White House who has no business being there.

Posted by: lsallard48 | February 19, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter and a Wisconsinite who was at the electrifying Madison rally (try closer to 20,000 attending) we saw that people are coming out to see him in droves. His wife spoke to a crowded house in Madison yesterday, her speech was awesome.
I don't honestly know how the state will go today. I know the polls were busy at 7am and poll workers I know said they've been really busy.
I was really only railing against zbob99 because I get a bit cranky about Wisconsin's image in the media.
Of course that could be because I was raised way up north in a very small town filled with redneck, cheap beer drinking, anti-semitic, racists who thought Ronald Reagan was some kind of god.
I don't expect those people to vote for Hillary or Obama. The hawkish ones will vote for McCain and the religious ones will vote for Huckabee. How the handful of Democrats vote is anyone's guess. But just because there are people like that in Wisconsin doesn't mean we all are.
And while we're on the subject, I like red wine and a good tasty microbrew, cheese that bites me, my vegetables organic, and my beef grass-fed.
I don't actually know or care what my candidates eat or drink. I don't need to feel like I have something in common with them. I want them whip-smart, articulate, thoughtful, and actually concerned about the welfare of ALL American citizens, not just corporate executives.
Having seen that Hillary worked for Wal-Mart is just galling to me. If I have to vote for her in the general election, well so be it, but I don't honestly believe she has anyone's interests but her own and her posterity in mind.

Posted by: kirstin | February 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Justmyvoice.

OK. What's your argument? Give me some examples of Clinton's experience. I don't mind this line of attack, but supporting it with your own empty rhetoric and assertions about how Clinton magically has "more" experience than Obama rather than facts strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. My point, if you'd read it, was that some people seem to be choosing to support Hillary merely because of her gender. This support seems to me just as petty as those who you deride who support Obama merely because he speaks well. But, and here's my point, at least those who support Obama because he speaks well have a reason rather than an arbitrary accident of birth to justify their choice.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

To jameswhanger:
"They have not been debunked, they have been DENIED."

What are you still claiming to be racist? What is vile racism to you that has been said?

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

From a previous post
.... At least the Obama people are choosing him because he speaks well, rather than because of his anatomical features.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 11:44 AM

Well then next time when experience means nothing anything more, we can forget all the money spent on campaigns, all the donations people are asked to send into campaigns and being forced to listen to wonky pundits on TV day after day after day, then we can all put out ads for the best public speakers to come forth, set them up in a national broadcast, listen to their best effots and then call or text message like American idol fans and pick our next President that way. So much easier and cheaper and so less stressful......

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

With all the talk of super delegates I am going to repost this:
In all fairness the DNP should step up and admit signals were given before the nomination process even began that Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated no matter who won the state.. Especially Florida since it was republicans in control of moving their primary up and breaking the rules. The party can ill afford to have Florida feel alienated in the general election. Instead they let Clinton take the fall.
No one thought then these delegates could determine the nomination and I do not think they will or should now. But to bash Sen. Clinton for trying to do what is best for the party while giving Obama a pass for trying to change the super delegate rules put in place long ago is the height of hypocrisy!
Super delegates were put in place when the party decided to make the nomination so open to outside influences. They were created for exactly the situation we now face, when a movement threatens to co-opt the political party and/or the voters are swayed toward someone who may not be best for the party or country.
We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public. What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November? In all likelihood this will be decided on popular vote, I only hope Florida's count does not have an impact. God help us if (shades of 2000) the overall popular vote is thwarted because of a technicality involving (not counting) Florida!
I blame the Democrat National Party for this fiasco and for not having the courage to defend their position(s).
They should not fear being called bigoted if they are seen as questioning Baraks qualifications; it is their job (and ours), and the role of super delegates. Truth hurts? Grow up!


Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

justmyvoice,

They have not been debunked, they have been DENIED. There is a huge difference. And, as far as Bill Clinton's tenure NOT being an embarassment. Do you remember HIS DENIALS? If he had manned up and fessed up, all would have been forgiven, but he chose the path of LIE, DENY, and JUSTIFY. YOU may not have found his behavior and it's reflection on the Democratic party to be embarassing, but MANY of us did.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Things that Hillary Clinton does bother me.
For example:
Hillary reportedly lent her campaign five million dollars.
My question is...Who is going to pay her back?

Posted by: dubbaltime | February 19, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Cliff,

I'm assuming you are contrasting Clinton's and Obama's campaigns as "compentency" over "rhetoric," respectively. What support do you have that Clinton is more compentent than Obama? Can you name a bill she's passed in her 6 years in the Senate that has substantively changed anything? As I've previously said, I don't mind discussing which plans the candidates offer are better, but I think that the "compentency" versus "rhetoric" is really a red herring. At least support your assertions with something more than rhetoric, if you want to attack rhetoric itself.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

crum,

In the past 5 years, I've observed the Washington Post supplant the NYT as the preferred source for accuracy and credibility. I have to admit, I never expected to see that happen. But it has.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

From a previous poster:
f Hillary's spouse were not the former president that put this country through the embarassment that was his tenure, you might have a point. But, he is the former president engaging in vile race-baiting political tactics. Sorry, but people do care about that.
Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:31 AM
......................................
Sorry to disagree but Clinton's tenure was not an embarrassment to anyone other than republicans who made it their goal to impeach him somehow against what was best or the country and for democrats who found it easy to sit back and let it happen. As for vile race baiting as you call it, those have been debunked and are not racist at all. But then the Obama camp wants to make his run all about race when it is to their advantage like claiming racism when none exists. Neither Clinton has made any comments you call racist and it is sad if you think otherwsie.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 19, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Cliff,

RIOT!! REALLY?? You're going with the term "RIOT"?? That's beautiful.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The red headed step-sister of the Post, the Washington Times, had a cover story today that I couldn't miss while walking to work. It said that McCain and Obama aren't following through on their campaign promises to pay for carbon offsets for plane and bus trips. I am seriously disappointed. I really don't want to get my hopes up for either of these candidates and their environmental stances only to be tricked again by lip service. Please email them and tell them to do what they promised.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/NATION/576162886/1001

Posted by: crumbrye1 | February 19, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

If we had elected based on competency over rhetoric we could have had Al Gore instead of Bush. We would have inspectors instead of war in Iraq and our might in Afghanistan and where the terrorists hide.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I live in Wisconsin and voted today for Obama. I am not a fanatical supporter of any political candidate and never have been. But the last 8 years have been so dark and negative I believe the country needs someone like Obama to inspire hope and positiveness. I see his failings just like I see Hillary's failings. I don't, however, find the fact that his speeches are passionate and uplifting to be the negative that Hillary's supporters seem to think it is. When I think of all the great presidents, they gave speeches that moved us and inspired us and called us to action. That isn't a negative. That's the sign of a great leader. I think most of my fellow Wisconsinites will feel the same today.

Posted by: grassy123 | February 19, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

AlwaysHillary,

What I find interesting about your post is that it portrays all of the elements of a cult member that Clinton's supporters so seem to deride in Obama. You appear to accept, uncritically, Clinton's claims about health care and being "ready on day 1" (whatever that means). Moreover, your claims are unsubstantiated by facts, such as bills she sponsored or enacted, or other evidence of her accomplishments. The Clinton following is just as bad as the alleged Obama "cult," if not worse. You seem to follow her because she's a woman, rather than for any other reason. At least the Obama people are choosing him because he speaks well, rather than because of his anatomical features.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Comment:
The perfect storm continues to brew toward the total destruction of the Democratic Party

A divided and fractured party in a divided and fractured country.

Now I am hearing about riots in the street if Obama loses, evocations of 1968 from those that glorify the 60's and do not remember how terrible and traumatic that time was. We only remember the good that came from it, I remember the price we paid for it.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"if I and my fellow Wisconsinites get the impression that Obama's supporters are ignorant about our state, we might get the feeling that Obama also considers us uneducated beer-hounds." Said MirthTones36

Might a Clinton supporter pose (in the comments section) as an Obama supporter to get this election season heated up some? Just saying... politics can get dirty and Hillary Clinton has had 35 years experience. Lots of tricks can be learned in 35 years.

Posted by: dionc9 | February 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

AlwaysHillary,

That made me laugh! Thanks, I needed that.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I absolutely agree with young Kate! Hillary Clinton is my hero, too! Never before has there been a woman who is so brilliant and qualified to be president, who has the perfect mix of a soft, warm, compassionate heart and the toughness needed to be Commander-in-Chief!!

Hillary Clinton has worked all her adult life for people in need. As First Lady of Arkansas she worked on education and as First Lady she traveled to 82 countries and was admired and respected by leaders all around the world! As a Senator from New York, Hillary has worked hard to make sure military people have the protective gear they need and the healthcare they require when they come home! Hillary is also responsible for seeing that 6 million children have healthcare!

Also, as the victim of personal attacks for 16 years, Hillary is battle tested and still standing strong! She is more than ready to be president on Day 1!!

Posted by: AlwaysforHillary | February 19, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

hopendave,

If Hillary's spouse were not the former president that put this country through the embarassment that was his tenure, you might have a point. But, he is the former president engaging in vile race-baiting political tactics. Sorry, but people do care about that.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

A sampling (by no means comprehensive) of hate words and phrases used by the Hillary loathers reveals:

trying to steal the nomination,
destroy the party,
cultish Clintonites,
ridiculous,
Billary,
HillBilly,
stop at nothing candidate,
tendencies toward obfuscation, and
too polarizing.

These are some of the same slings and arrows sent Gore and Kerry's way by the right wing hate machine. They're eerily similar which seems to suggest that the Hillary loathers are either parroting the right wing hate machine or they *are* the right wing hate machine.

I can understand the parroting, as they don't seem to be able to point to any concrete examples of Barack's accomplishments, so it's much easier to engage in hate speech.

The possibility that they might be the right wing hate machine itself is mildly amusing. Would they rather go up against Barack than Hillary, and if so why? It's easier to hate someone with dark skin, particularly if the dark skinned one can be associated with 'tear'ists', "islamofacists" and Muslims in general. Going after an ex-president's wife is a bit harder.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 19, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

A lil' bit up this comment thread martisavignali said, "I am probably one of the 15 million who would be left out of Obama's health care plan."

On the other hand martisavignali, this would mean that under Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan you would be forced to buy healthcare insurance. Not sure if you could be sent to jail for not buying it but *mandate* implies some punishment. Hillary has told us that under her plan, everyone is mandated to have healthcare insurance. A poor family that barely makes ends meet could end up with mom and dad in jail because of mandated healthcare insurance that they can not afford. Maybe instead of jail, the Clinton led government will force the poor family to pay fines for not having healthcare insurance. Imagine that! Naturally, Hillary will not enforce this mandate but it makes her mandated healthcare plan seem more a fantasy than reality based.

Posted by: dionc9 | February 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

MirthTones36:

How did I bash WI?? Whats wrong with being blue-collar and drinking beer?? In fact when Obama wins tonight I will down a couple of cold ones to celebrate! Skoal!

Posted by: zbob99 | February 19, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

No one is "Magically" taking away the negativity. It was NOT THERE to begin with. This is politics, people. All the whining and crying about how negatively Obama is being portrayed is baloney. He needs to be criticized and analyzed because too many people are buying his line of myth.

Posted by: hopendave_1999 | February 19, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

You have missed it. There has been ALOT of gender bias this campaign. Analyzing every move made by Hillary's spouse..when we glossed over the snotty, pushy attitude of Michelle Obama...making a big deal about Hillary's so-called "crying" episode....cartoons, videos, etc. criticizing her appearance but none on any of the male candidates...Time/Cnn churning out stupid National Enquirer-like stories about Hillary...the gender bias has been LOUD and CLEAR this campaign. Tell me this, a cartoon showing Hillary's "crying" was OK, but how about a cartoon showing Obama eating chicken and watermelon. That would never fly because that is a stereotype, yet its OK for the whole "woman crying" thing to be exploited. If you don't see the bias, you aren't looking very hard.

Posted by: hopendave_1999 | February 19, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

In response to the first comment from zbob99: You seem very optimistic about Obama's chances in Wisconsin today, and I am assuming you are an Obama supporter. I just want to point out that bashing the residents of Wisconsin is not going to help him win the primary. On the contrary--if I and my fellow Wisconsinites get the impression that Obama's supporters are ignorant about our state, we might get the feeling that Obama also considers us uneducated beer-hounds. I'm not saying that all Obama supporters are making these assumptions, but you are a representative, and you would do well to remember that.

Just for the record, University of Wisconsin has 26 campuses and over 160,000 current students. Oh, and I prefer red wine, as does Hillary, according to this article.

Cheers.

Posted by: MirthTones36 | February 19, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

This is just another example of Hillary Clinton practicing the art of her mentor and subject of her 1969 college thesis, Saul Alinsky. Mr. Alinksy's fifth rule of political agitation was, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
*
While the public benefited from Barack Obama's public accomplishments, it was only Hillary Clinton who benefited from her personal achievements.
*
In 1979 while Barack Obama was involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary Clinton was reaping future market profits of 10,000% and leaving taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.
*
In 1989 while Barack was the Harvard Law Review's first black president, Hillary as First Lady of Arkansas was receiving director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about their anti-labor union practices.
*
In 1999 while Barack was winning bipartisan support for health-care reform and low-income tax credits in the Illinois legislature, Hillary was supporting her husband's Iraq regime change policy to divert attention from his ethical infidelities.
*
When did Hillary Clinton demonstrate her infamous economic wisdom and foresight while Alan Greenspan was warning of irrational exuberance as the subprime housing loans were created and pandered during her husband's administration and her husband supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization without any conditions such as protecting the environment or labor and property rights to levels that are comparable to western standards?
*
Today China is not only a leading contributor to environmental pollution and global warming (thank you very much Mr. Nobel Laureate, Al Gore), it's also pushing up oil and other commodity prices, taking our jobs and stealing our intellectual property.
*
As a Republican-leaning independent, I will vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee running against John McCain but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: jonura_smith | February 19, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I took Gender and Race in Public Policy too, but these sophistic arguments that people are swaying to Obama because of 1. hysteria and 2. latent sexism are just repackaging of the claim that there is no possible substantive reason to choose him. The conclusion is presumed in the argument, and the furious academic noodling is just decoration. Further,
maligning Obama support as hysteria or fevers is grossly ironic within its terms, because these are precisely the semi biological terms used to mock women's intelligence. Pack up your MacKinnon. This election is not a discourse of power in terms of gender, or race. Its about two people and who has the ideas, character and temperment to lead.

Posted by: wharwood | February 19, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

honendave,

PREFACING a negative attack by saying it's NOT a negative attack, does not magically negate the negativity.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

This is not a NEGATIVE campaign. Obama is so good at playing the innocent and people are buying his crap. Time to WAKE UP..he has no substance and no qualifications to lead our country. If you think GWB is bad, Obama will be the ruin of us all.

Posted by: hopendave_1999 | February 19, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully, the residents of Wisconsin will show the nation that they are not buying into the Obama line of crap. Change, Change, Change...and nothing else...it's all so glib and lacking substance. The time to WAKE UP is now, people.

Posted by: hopendave_1999 | February 19, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

alterego,

Point taken. Perhaps I'm missing it somehow, but I haven't sensed resistance to a woman leader. What I've sensed is resistance to this particular woman leader and I've observed intense support by many women based on the fact that she IS a woman. Thus, in my estimation there appears to be gender bias FOR her, which is different than gender bias AGAINST her.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Correction to previous post:

kirstin: I do apologize. I did NOT mean to imply that WI is full of beer-drinking rednecks. It is just that pollsters have identified WI voters as trending towards more blue-collar than some other states and this should give Hillary the advantage. If she loses WI then it would not bode well for her in other similar states like OH and PA.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

jameswhanger,

I don't think you disagree, so much as offer a different point. I'm not making a point about race-baiting, but rather that Clinton is much less electable, for a variety of reasons, than Obama. My guess is that we agree on that. My point is only that the anti-Clinton and anti-women factors are powerful and real. I don't deny, though, that Clinton's surrogates have engaged in some pretty nasty race-related campagining. And, to your point, Obama has not engaged in gender-biased analyses or campaining. My point is different, though.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

kirstin: I do apologize. I did mean to imply that WI is full of beer-drinking rednecks. It is just that pollsters have identified WI voters as trending towards more blue-collar than some other states and this should give Hillary the advantage. If she loses WI then it would not bode well for her in other similar states like OH and PA.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I disagree with your interpretation, alterego. In no way has there been gender-bias baiting taking place in ANY similar way to the race baiting of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

marti,

That's disingenuous. Either you are engaging in INTENTIONAL distortion or you haven't read enough to know that what you just said is simply wrong.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

CliffinWA is right. Sadly, we accept sexism much more than racism.

However, recognizing that as a reality is actually a reason that Obama is a better general election candidate than Clinton. I like Clinton, but the reality is that A LOT of people do not, many for entirely irrational reasons (conspiracy theorists, sexists, etc.). Because of that reality, even if it's one we don't like, it is more likely that a Clinton candidacy will create a winner out of the Republicans in the general election. I sympathize with the Clinton supporters who say that she is inspiring to them, and I do think it would be great to have a woman. However, I want the White House more. Realistically, due to accepted sexism in the country and irrational anti-Clintonisms, Clinton will envigorate a depressed GOP to vote against her, and she has less of a chance of pulling in the independents, who will swing towards McCain. As a Democrat, I really, really want to win, and I just do not see a way for Clinton to do that.

I know a lot of people think she's great. I don't disagree. But until you can explain the calculus that gets her winning a general election, I cannot vote for her.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Cliff,

You seem bright and thus you also know that there are alternative interpretations of the data your present. It is also possible that there is something inherent in this particular candidate that has nothing to do with gender. It is plausible that people don't like her because she's mean, the same way people didn't like Howard Dean because he came across as hostile. This interpretation is equally plausible given the data at hand.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is a great candidate who offers solid solutions. I like Obama but I cannot understand why some of his voting record seems to run counter to his rhetoric. I am also a little concerned because while he talks about change, I don't hear what types of changes he is talking about. I am probably one of the 15 million who would be left out of Obama's health care plan.

Posted by: martisavignali | February 19, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Here is some tning which may explain Clinton leads in places like Texas evaporating. The women who were once loyal to her are succumbing to Obama fever.

I was once part of a group report in a social psychology class on experiments which showed discrimination can be based both on race and gender, but gender discrimination was much more acceptable. Not only acceptable to be displayed or voiced, but also acceptable as a personally held belief. There is much less internal discord and pressure to change if no word (like racism) is in our consciousness to accuse. Also, women displayed much more bias against other women than between any other group. Sexist is not a name women fear being called.
One interesting experiment studied helping behavior between pairs which were either male or female and assigned either leader or helper roles. The resulting four "types" were presented with a situation in which a pencil caddy was knocked over by another "type" and they had to choose to help or not. One of my female co-reporters put the results this way: "We suck up to the male bosses and like women in subservient roles."
The female leader was by far the least likely to be helped out during the contrived/planned event and least well thought of when their helper was interviewed. Again, this was the case regardless of helper gender. Females are the only ones which accept; make that "tolerate", discrimination even within their own group.
My conclusion is polling and anecdotal evidence will be skewed. Racism hides in the shadows while sexism will be overrepresented. Comments I have heard on blogs and personally indicate a concern our international standing will be affected by electing either a woman or black man as president. As expected, much less fervor and resistance against the sexist viewpoint

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Look, Hillary "substance" people. What has she actually offered, besides words? The truth of the matter is that, as candidates for office, that's all anyone can offer. If Hillary is "substance," then why is she only proposing things? Isn't that what Obama's doing - making proposals? I don't see how this gets us anywhere. If you disagree with Obama's proposals, then articulate it. But don't just say he has "rhetoric," because really, that's all any of the candidates has right now. By definition, they do NOT have an office, and so they can only make promises of what they would do if they get into office. That's not substance.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 19, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I would thank zbob99 and the rest of the coastal people to stop assuming that Wisconsin is nothing but beer-drinking, undeducated yokels.
Why should Wisconsin have been Hillary's state? Is that some thinly veiled attempt to assert that we're all a bunch of racists here?
I can't make any predictions because my following of State and local news begins and ends with Madison, but it will be interesting to see how the sparsely populated Northern counties vote today.

Posted by: kirstin | February 19, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

This entire attack about words and substance is based in fact on one distinction HRC means to draw: who has the wonkiest stump speech. There is no difference between the detail of policy proposals available for those who do more than watch the 7 oclock news clippings of speeches. Obama has set out his singular record of doggedly supporting liberal progressive values in 11 years in Illinois legislatures and the US Senate, and yet more time working in the streets to lift up working people. There is your substance. Compare the resumes of legislative work and the quantum of hard work for real people that isn't billable, and make up your own mind.

HRC's attack on Obama on this point comes down the thinly veiled assertion that people who inspire, or those who inspire like he does, are not smart like she is.

Everyone can hear, again, the arrogant claim that people like him would be nowhere without people like her (or LBJ,her analogy not mine). Every idea he has is really hers, every thing he says is someoneelse's, and so on. Sorry, but I think the Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude and Law Review masthead hanging in his office say otherwise, and I think his dilligence and work for the core values of his party speak volumes about his priorities.

This new negative barrage will not work. People are not buying the experience thing because it has no content---HRC has no experience advantage. People are not going to buy it repackaged as a substance claim, because its the same void in a different, nastier box.

Posted by: wharwood | February 19, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Habeas,

Although I'm sure Obama would appreciate the kudos you gave him by saying that Hillary provided "VIRTUALLY NO OPPOSITION", but I personally think she's given him a pretty good fight.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Why Obama should be hired over Hillary.

Some of the most important abilities of a top executive include: (1)The ability to MOTIVATE people to action, (2)The ability to RESOLVE CONFLICT rather than ESCALATE it, (3)The ability to build COALITIONS not create DIVISIONS.

There is NO QUESTION that Obama possesses these and Hillary does NOT.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Dear Hillary lovers:

Today may be the end for your candidate. Wisconsin should have been a Hillary state -- blue collar, whites, no college education, "beer drinkers". If she loses WI many will begin to doubt her support in OH, TX and PA. If she loses today I think its over and it will be time to join together as Democrats and focus on how best to thump the GOP in Nov.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Anne Milligan...

My mom has always told me "A little education is a dangerous thing, but ignorance is bliss". Unfortunately you are too busy "micro-analyzing" Obama's appeal versus his substance. The reason why Obama endorsers don't go into policy differences Hillary and Obama, that is because there is not that much tangible difference. Even there health care plans share about 90% similiarity, except that Hillary's plan is more expensive and is mandated.

Obama has come across as the most authentic of the remaining top candidates including John McCain. I am continually amazed at someone who is educated like you claim to be, to be re-touting Hillary's claim of 35 years of experience. You really need to do more research into your candidate beyond the 1990s to validate Hillary's claims of experience. The Republican party machine won't be so accepting that Hillary has 35 years of experience given that she has had elected public office for only 7 years.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

We LOVE Hillary! We enthusiastically support her for President because she's the most qualified and most electable candidate in the race. Why else would the corporate owned and rethuglicans who own THEM be so shamelessly promoting Obama and attacking Hillary? It's SO very obvious, they want Obama to be nominated because he's unelectable. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. Wake up! Don't be fooled by the media again, VOTE SMART! VOTE HILLARY CLINTON! She'll be a GREAT President!

Posted by: TAH1 | February 19, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

FYI: Heavy turnout reported in Wisconsin. Many registering on the spot. Many young people. Many union voters with "Unions for Obama" buttons. There are even reports of some Repubs voting in the Dem primary for Obama to stop Hillary! This could be a good day for Senator Obama.

Posted by: zbob99 | February 19, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Why do Obama supporters want him to be president? Because we want someone we can be proud of, not someone we are ashamed of. We are ashamed of the lies and the vile tactics of the Clintons. We are ashamed because she supported and continues to support her continually unfaithful Husband who is incapable of accepting responsibility for his vile behavior. We are ashamed that she actively targeted, discredited, and attacked the women brave enough to actually talk about Bill's abhorrent behavior. We are ashamed that she is willing to lie, distort, cheat, and even to incite racial tensions in order to gain power. We would rather be proud of our president.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Yall Obama supporters keep in mind....where are Hillary's votes going to go if she isn't the nominee?

Mine is going for McCain.

Posted by: Georgiapeac21556 | February 19, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

sv,

Which president exactly do you believe Michelle Obama should have been proud of this country supporting in the past 30 years?? The Bushes?? Bill Clinton?? Ford?? Nixon??? She's right. Barrack is the first candidate this country has supported that is WORTHY of our enthusiastic support. For the first time, we, as a country, are rejecting the vile negative campaign tactics that the Clintons have come to embody.

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

Annemi,

Bravo!

Posted by: hdimig | February 19, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Every time I read another endorsement of Barack Obama, I see that the endorser chose Obama because he is "new", but I have yet to read any realistic, concrete reasons why these persons consider his brand of  "new"  to be "better". As a psychotherapist, I can write a book on people whose lives have been ruined after having fallen prey to the idea that something "new" is automatically associated with something "better".
I wish "new" really was always better. That would make it so much easier to decide how to proceed in life. The next time I wanted a "new" dose of happiness, I'd just follow the advertisers to that "new" product for whiter teeth, less body odor or bad breath. I'd max out my credit to buy a brand "new" status car with a fancy emblem on it, or I'd follow the mobs to the next high fashion store at the mall for the newest fashion statement.  But we are talking about someone who is campaigning for the role of the next president of the United States. This is not a game to be taken lightly based on unconscious and fallacious ideas of what is new and better. I'm proposing that once we challenge and debunk the hidden assumption that new is necessarily better, we'll see that Barack Obama is actually a less than stellar version of a better "new". We will see that his campaign (aided by the media), is psychologically manipulating the national state of clinical depression we are all feeling after seven years of the Bush debacle, and we will see that he is a candidate who is so inexperienced that he actually has to resort to plagiarizing Hillary Clinton's incredibly detailed policy proposals in order to keep up with her. Rather than giving in to mass hysteria over a man who has not yet earned the title of "new and better" maybe we should form national support groups for those who have almost survived eight years of the most horribly negative and depressing president anyone could have ever imagined.  Then we can hand the next presidency to someone (Hillary Clinton) who has spent the past thirty five years preparing for this chance to make things truly better for the country and the world.

Anne Milligan
250 Park Service Rd.
Hodgenville, KY  42748
270-358-5079
502-797-4411
www.annemilligan.com
amill2nm@aol.com

Posted by: Annemi | February 19, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

"So, we have Rezko, a wife with a big attitude problem, cocaine, word theft, and we know very little about this guy."

Don't forget Excelon who Obama authored unfavorable legislation against but backed down after they donated massively to his campaign. There is also the CYA "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature. There can be a huge disparity between a persons words and their actions.

Posted by: hdimig | February 19, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Clinton then added: "Facts are important. I'm a facts person. If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words."

This line can be used against Hillary Clinton each and every day with a different subject to prove she loses interest in facts if they don't suit her. Today I'd like to look back at the Michigan and Florida primary.

From *Meet the Press* Feb 17th '08...
Howard Dean wrote this letter to all the candidates:
"As leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 delegate selection rules. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules. ... The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire," "South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, '08. The [Rules and Bylaws Committee's] finding of noncompliance included a 100 percent loss of pledged and unpledged delegates."

If you tried to move your primary up, you've lost all your delegates. Florida and Michigan did it, they lost all their delegates. The Clinton campaign put out this statement: "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the" nomination "process." "We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

Posted by: dionc9 | February 19, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The Woman Has Absolutely No Shame,

I must comment on the following statement uttered, while drinking a small glass of red WHINE, by the factual Hillary Clinton " "Facts are important. I'm a facts person. If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words."

IF you are only about words, I would agree yet, I believe this is projection of the highest order for it is Clinton's candidacy that comes closest to this statement. How about the word 'experience', where are the facts to support this?

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN , the great senator from NY said 'you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitle to your own facts." Yet Clinton is a facts person and the following are a list of a few opinions the Clinton's have spun as facts:

her involvement in the Irish Peace process. When did she come up with this one?
the first U.S. Senator to call Darfur genocide. What about Finegold?
The spelling of her name; she was named after an unknown beekeeper in New Zealand?
In Iraq,civilian deaths have risen." Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006 ... facts matter?
Ready on day one: to do what? No one better throw her a curve for if it is not planned she's paralyzed. Look at her campaign after she was suprised by Obama.

And Barack Obama's campaign is not based merely on words but on his OWN experience not his spouse's. He is brilliant and well educated, she is merely well educated. He is a great inspirational speaker and a great organizer. She now appears to be neither. What Hillary doesn't understand is the concept of Multi-talented which is odd as she has been married to such a person; didn't she notice? Why must it always be either or?

james d. granata


Posted by: jganymede | February 19, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree with habeaspoliticus ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 19, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that the Obama people are stunned that they are being attacked. Isn't that what being the "front runner" is all about??? If they can't take it now they should get out while there ahead. Just more evidence that when you win elections with virtually no opposition, does not mean that you have a mandate. Personally, I like Sen. Obama. However, I do not think that a couple of terms as a state legislator and 3 years (1 year running for president) as a Senator, prepare you for the pitfalls ahead. If Obama wins the nomination, without my vote, he will have much more criticism to address. People are still leery about his attending a Muslim school, which I think is a stupid argument, but it's just those stupid arguments that win races. Remember "compassionate conservativism". As a democrat I am concerned about his lack of experience. No one doubts his ability to campaign well, but running the country and winning elections are two different things. Just ask Hillary Clinton, she lived through 8 years of attacks on Bill. Like Harry Truman use to say " If you can't take the heat, you better stay out of the kitchen."

Posted by: habeaspoliticus | February 19, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

It's obvious that words are the most important part of Obama's campaign. I think it's hilarious they he even had to steal those. So, we have Rezko, a wife with a big attitude problem, cocaine, word theft, and we know very little about this guy. Sorry buddy, if you're going to cast yourself as the candidate for change, this ain't the kind of change I'm looking for. I'm looking for a leader who is brilliant and has command of the issues, command of her own words, and can take command of the government on day 1.

Clinton '08 - SUBSTANCE

Posted by: Susan9 | February 19, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

To the comments on the media... I would prefer to have a President who draws the harsh criticism of the media - we currently have a president who gets the soft glove treatment and look where we are. So, bring it on, she can handle it and we are ready for it - we deserve it!

-- Columbus, Ohio

Posted by: cito-1 | February 19, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

"In Wisconsin, Clinton Has a Specific Appeal," yes, and that "specific appeal" is to women, especially older white women.

But with Hillary's negative personal ads attacking Barack, and her surrogates' attacks through other media, even identity voting may become less predictable for thoughtful citizens.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 19, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Today David Brooks notes:

"How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation's 261,000 lobbyists don't see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party -- the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, the AARP?"

Dang! That coffee is STRONG!

He also notes:

"The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here's the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it's vaporous."

A huusler and a mark recognize each other. You see they need each other.

The husler needs for you to believe. The mark needs to believe.

The Obama-maniacs do believe.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 19, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporters accuse Hillary of running a negative campaign - it's just another mantra that they trot out. They reveal how naive they are, which will be a gift to the Republicans when they begin to destroy Obama. I have read endless posts calling for Hillary to 'stand down', as if daring to contest the word or credibility of Obama as Democrat candidate is treachery.
Obama has had a free ride from the media - they have lapped up the rhetoric of his speeches, but as soon as he is the nominee, they will expect a lot more than fine words, and he will be under the microscope - I notice Michelle's comments about being proud of America for the first time are getting some column inches - this is just the beginning.
This is politics, Obama is running for the most important job in the world - he will need to make very difficult decisions and his supporters cry 'foul' at anyone who doesn't fall for his charm, or who dares to question his credentials? I am so scared by the prospect of this man and his zombie followers doing any more damage to the Democratic party and America - if the worst travesty occurs and he wins the nomination, I will have to vote McCain, because "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".
Wake up American Democrats - vote for Hillary!

Posted by: bessmount | February 19, 2008 6:59 AM | Report abuse

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Hillary's campaign ran adds comparing Obama's and Patrick's speeches and asking Wisconsin voters if they want someone who borrowed liberally from another w/o attribution and asking if there is anything else that's not Barack's.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 19, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama: "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"

I am stunned at the LACK of coverage by the main stream media. There is a conspiracy to cover it up. Someone has silenced boston.com and made them remove the discussion. SHAME on the media.

Maybe readers need to remind the WISCONSIN readers using their local blogs and newspapers what type of first lady they may be voting for....

Shame on Obama supporters for not expressing their feelings

Posted by: vs_sv | February 19, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

It is hard for me to believe that the Obama fanatics think that this is a n"negative" cmpaign. The "Childrens Crusade" of the Middle Ages will be a cake walk compared to what the Republican 527's will do in the campaign. They do not have to worry about the black vote - they lose 90% of it anyway. Let's remember Willie Horton, Swift Boating, Watergate, etc. You are truely mistaken if you belive that the "Lions will lay Down with the Lambs" just because a black public speaker can excite crowds. I will vote for Hillary who has been through this before. Chris Mathews, Keith Oberman, etc. will rue the day that they have been pushing this "open vessel" for the most important job in the world. So will all of us that believe that the Democratic Party must win in 2008. Let Barak tell us how he will change the make up of the Senate in a "bi-partasian" way - Orin Hatch, Mitch Mc Connell, etc. will still have over 40 votes for a filibuster - even Martin Luther King could not change that math - grow up and enter the adult world of compromise and carrying heavy water to get things done - not just wishing they would be so.

Posted by: bmcclo6978 | February 19, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

It is hard for me to believe that the Obama fanatics think that this is a n"negative" cmpaign. The "Childrens Crusade" of the Middle Ages will be a cake walk compared to what the Republican 527's will do in the campaign. They do not have to worry about the black vote - they lose 90% of it anyway. Let's remember Willie Horton, Swift Boating, Watergate, etc. You are truely mistaken if you belive that the "Lions will lay Down with the Lambs" just because a black public speaker can excite crowds. I will vote for Hillary who has been through this before. Chris Mathews, Keith Oberman, etc. will rue the day that they have been pushing this "open vessel" for the most important job in the world. So will all of us that believe that the Democratic Party must win in 2008. Let Barak tell us how he will change the make up of the Senate in a "bi-partasian" way - Orin Hatch, Mitch Mc Connell, etc. will still have over 40 votes for a filibuster - even Martin Luther King could not change that math - grow up and enter the adult world of compromise and carrying heavy water to get things done - not just wishing they would be so.

Posted by: bmcclo6978 | February 19, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

A second Texas poll was released today, and it has Clinton up 5% only, though the poll might have oversampled Hispanics. Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/02/as-race-remains-tight-clinton-campaign.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | February 19, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has run no extremely negative campaign. Her campaign has focused on the issues and telling the truth to voters. Voters need to know about the issues and they need to have the truth to make informed decisions. Nothing extremely negative about that.

Obama lied about rudely snubbing Hillary Clinton at the SOTU; he lifted from her economic solution; and now he lifted rhetoric that he passed off as his own. It seems like there is a troubling trend of dishonesty of a corrupt politician.

Posted by: crat3 | February 19, 2008 01:27 AM
---------------------------

Get real.

90% of HRC's campaign is putting Obama down rather than talking herself up.

It's why she is losing.

Crat3's comment is more of the same. Not one detail to substantiate the claim that her campaign is about "the issues and telling the truth to voters." All negative attacks on Obama.

Posted by: mnjam | February 19, 2008 4:57 AM | Report abuse

Clinton then added: "Facts are important. I'm a facts person. If your whole candidacy is based on words, it should be your own words."

Both campaigns are based on words -- e.g. HRC's claims that she is action and Obama is words is itself just words. Obama's words happen to be better than HRC's. Which matters.

As for facts, HRC should explain how she, as a woman of acion, failed to sponsor and secure passage of a single piece of major legislation in seven years. Obama has 3 to his credit in 3 years: The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act,The 2007 Government Ethics Law.

It's time for HRC to disclose Bill Clinton's post-Presidential business dealings with foreign governments. He is running for First Laddie, making these a matter of legitimate concern -- especially given her claims that she is fully "vetted." Maybe for anything up to 2000. But that leaves 7 years since. Let's hear about it now.

Posted by: mnjam | February 19, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

CNN just came out with a new poll that shows Obama and Clinton are TIED in Texas, a state in which Clinton has held a 20 point lead and has been campaigning since last week.

That's real news.

Obama has written TWO best selling books and is a true master at written and spoken communication.

Clinton should stick to the issues. She can be a walking encyclopedia of facts and still be worthless because she is a master at polarizing this nation.

Posted by: AnninSeattle | February 19, 2008 4:34 AM | Report abuse

mrhamham : I can't agree with you more. I've watched the campaigns from the onset and have heard many of Obama's highly descriptive speeches and have gone to his website. The beauty of Obama's rallies is that in order to attend you need to sign up via his website. And what would you know, you attend his rally, you get fired up and check out his website ladened with details about what he stands for. For those who have the time to blast Obama online, yet can't click to his website, I have no adequate response for you.

Posted by: oshowole | February 19, 2008 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Every time when HRC's campaign highlights key differences with BHO's campaign or remind the voters of what he said and did in the past, she is being accused of looking for dirt. THis is wrong. They are doing what the Obama-friendly media fail to do, say what independent observers should be saying and investigate issues that investigative journalists should be looking for.
The American media should stop turning their arsenals on HRC and instead point it to those who are leading them by their noses.

Posted by: lradendorf | February 19, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

While I agree that Obama doesn't give wonky stump speeches, it perpetually amazes me that people think that he's short on detail. If you are going on their stump speech alone, then you are missing the whole point! If you want to know these candidates, it is urgent that you look closer (if you haven't already). Obama is very, very, very long on detail. Especially compared to any other candidate that I've ever seen at this point in the nomination process. It was a conscious decision to not be too wonky in the stump speeches because his first priority is coalition building within the Democratic party. He has a background as an academic for God's sake! He has given many wonky speeches, they're out there (do I need to refer you to his website?). Isn't it easier to sit down and take the time to compare and contrast their detailed policy proposals, rather than depending on their stump speech to get into great detail? Sheesh. It's his great strength to communicate policy as something that's personal, not just abstractions for those wonky politicians in Washington!

Posted by: mrhamham | February 19, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!

Her solutions will make America a better place for all of us. She is so knowledgeable and passionate and the one I want to be our next president.

Posted by: MAB2 | February 19, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has run no extremely negative campaign. Her campaign has focused on the issues and telling the truth to voters. Voters need to know about the issues and they need to have the truth to make informed decisions. Nothing extremely negative about that.

Obama lied about rudely snubbing Hillary Clinton at the SOTU; he lifted from her economic solution; and now he lifted rhetoric that he passed off as his own. It seems like there is a troubling trend of dishonesty of a corrupt politician.

Posted by: crat3 | February 19, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is playing the cards she has been dealt and with Texas looming, she has her poker face on:

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

Time for us to decide.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 19, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

"your own words", huh?

In New Hampshire, in her victory speech, Hillary said (in an indirect reference to Mr. Obama) "you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose."

SHE plagiarized, because THAT particular political maxim was first uttered in a 1985 speech at Yale University by former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Posted by: julieds | February 19, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

I respect Hillary's accomplishments and what she means to her supporters, but only a small bit of objectivity shows that she has run an extremely negative campaign and has endangered the future of the party. I've been very disappointed in her, and I won't be rewarding her tactics with a vote in the general election.

Posted by: maq1 | February 19, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company