Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New Mexico Finally Called

By Shailagh Murray
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was declared the winner of the New Mexico caucuses, a Feb. 5 state that took its time tallying the results.

The victory was a boost for the New York senator, who has lost eight contests in a row to Sen. Barack Obama since their Super Tuesday split decision. Clinton had little to say publicly after those defeats. But the statement from her campaign declaring victory in New Mexico was released tonight just as the state Democratic Party announced the final results.

The outcome wasn't surprising: Clinton led narrowly in New Mexico when all precincts were reported on election night, and wound up winning 27 of the state's 33 counties, according to her campaign, along with 14 of the state's 26 delegates. She beat Barack Obama by 1,709 votes, slightly higher than her 1,123-vote margin on election night. "I am so proud to have earned the support of New Mexicans from across the state," Clinton said in a statement.

Like all states that have held Democratic nominating contests this year, New Mexico was swamped by turnout that was far higher than expected. One result was 17,276 provisional ballots cast by voters who showed up at the wrong polling station, or who forgot to mail their absentee ballots, or for whom regular ballots ran out. Starting last Thursday, those ballots had to be hand counted under the supervision of representatives from both campaigns.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 14, 2008; 6:01 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Superdelegates Are People, Too, Says Dean
Next: Shooting for the Stars, Clinton Finds Skeptics on the Ground

Comments

Dear Clinton Supporters,

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person who is due respect, but she can't build the consensus that he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to Governor Bill Richardson, the guy that Bill Clinton evidently sought to place under gag order and consign to house arrest?

Seems like Governor Richardson's time has been served and he might step forward now to help bind up his party's wounds, beginning to close ranks around the Democratic candidacy of Barack Obama.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I am amused and saddened by people who say they do not want to vote for a candidate that takes us back to the 90s.
I assume that means they do not want a candidate that wins.
The Democratic nominee, Bill Clinton, won two times in the 1990s for the first time since Franklin D Roosevelt. (1932-1945)
Does that mean that voters want to go back to having a Democratic nominee who loses like they have in 2004, 2000, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1968?
We better watch for what we wish for!
Hillary 2008!

Posted by: GSWAGNER | February 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Questionable. Let's see...you have a discovery of ballots at the home of an election official, you have Bill Clinton at your home for the Super Bowl and you finally tally up all the votes after a month of voter rejection. Sounds like the Clinton's are up to their ole tricks again. Most people I come across who were early on Clinton supporters feel that once they went negative it was all over. The issue of platform promises and substance is not what garners the support of the people this time around. It is the fact that everyone is tired of fighting and maybe Obama doesn't know it all like the Clinton's, but guess what, he is willing to involve the American people, party members, Subject Matter Experts and other political parties. Hillary Clinton refuses to respect others, demands that you vote for her and discounts you if you disagree. Now you decide. I have. Yes We Can!

Posted by: vdiperez | February 15, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

OK, so let us add to CakeManJB's "interesting & informative" list for bills sponsored in 2007:

Sen. Obama:

A concurrent resolution honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in the field of organic chemistry and the first and only African-American chemist to be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences.

A concurrent resolution condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society.

A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring Rosa Louise McCauley Parks.

A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month.

A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.

A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".

A resolution honoring and recognizing the achievements of Carl Stokes, the first African-American mayor of a major American city, in the 40th year since his election as Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio.


Sen. Clinton:

A bill to improve health care for severely injured members and former members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for employer-provided employee housing assistance, and for other purposes.

A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a national center for public mental health emergency preparedness, and for other purposes.

A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the health of susceptible populations, including pregnant women, infants, and children, by requiring a health advisory, drinking water standard, and reference concentration for trichloroethylene vapor intrusion, and for other purposes.

A bill to require the International Trade Commission to report on the specific impact of each free trade agreement in force with respect to the United States on a sector-by-sector basis, and for other purposes.

In Conclusion, you now have the facts straight from the Senate Records vault.

That "list" puts things in a different light. Do some research sheeple and don't just listen to the drool that is posted by others. Once again, I have no dog in this democratic fight other than taking glee in watching them devour each other. I think Obama is an empty suit and Hillary is a Marxist and McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothes. Once again, these candidates are the best we can come up with? Think about it.

Posted by: justme | February 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

CakeManJB,

Great list. Pretty interesting and informative. Thanks for posting it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

OK, first off, I am not a democrat and I can't stand Hillary or the Clinton's. With that said, to those of you who keep reposting the Obama versus Clinton sponsored bills... STOP IT!! Go to the Library of Congress website, http://thomas.loc.gov/ and Browse Bills by sponsor. Don't just cherry pick.

As a side note: It is quite entertaining to watch the Democrats imploding. Personally, I hope the Republicans do the same. Seriously, 300 million people and this lot is the best that we can come up with? We all need to make a change, and it does start with the ballot box. We need to send EVERY elected official packing and start fresh. Politics were never meant to be a career.

Posted by: justme | February 15, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

I don't have to "hate" Sen. Clinton to believe that the choices she makes in her life are a very clear indication of how she'd make choices as America's president.

I don't agree with most of her political choices (or her personal ones, either, for that matter) and so I don't think I'd agree with anything she'd choose to do as if she were elected president.

I don't believe that she's shown very good judgment in ANY area of her life.

So I would NEVER vote for her.

That doesn't equate to "hate." To me, it just equates to my own good judgment.

(Contrary to what many of her supporters would like to believe, choosing NOT to support Hillary Clinton need have NO emotional component whatsoever.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 15, 2008 4:10 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama --During the first eight years of Senator Obama's elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
- 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)
Senator Clinton -- Senator Clinton's, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Hon
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Senator Clinton's bills are more substantive:
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

In Conclusion, you now have the facts straight from the Senate Records vault.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 15, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

Clinton should hang on tough. I'm sicken tired of Obama's preacher styed high talk. Is this a talk show, or serious politics? Some of the folks in this country are too dumb to count all fingers in both hands. Just look how thse guys put Bush/Cheney twice in office, as if one disater wasn't enough. Obama is playing a different game now, but more or less the same as Bush's: that's so-called "passion". Let the blind passion ride and we'll all see a yet another blunder. Just look at this guy record. There isn't much else there except a lot of good talk.

Posted by: cosymoon | February 15, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse

DO NOT vote for Hillary Clinton as she is obviously a warmonger and a hypocrite. She voted for the resolution that gave Bush the authority to make a vicious, unnecessary and unjustifiable attack on Iraq, and then criticized him about the war. She continues to vote to give Bush more billions of taxpayers' dollars to continue the war that kills our soldiers and has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and old people, and she refuses to make a definitive statement that she will bring all our soldiers home even by the end of her first term as president, assuming that she is elected. Ours soldiers are literally being blown apart and kill everyday while the Washington Politicians, including Hillary Clinton give Bush more money for the war so that more of our solders can be blown up and kill in a war that should never have been started. The next soldier that returns home in a body bag or with his/her eyes blown out, brain damaged, no legs or arms and completely paralyzed from head to toe, just might be a relative of yours. Is that really what you want? As Hillary has refused to definitely state that she would bring ours troops home, that is just what you may get. If you want 4 to 8 more years of war after Bush leaves office and if you want yourself, your children and grandchildren to pay for it, vote for Hillary Clinton. A vote for Hillary is the same as a vote for George Bush. If you want an end to the unprovoked and unnecessary war, and America to be set on the right path, then vote for BARACK OBAMA. I have always been a loyal Democrat all of my adult life, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

Posted by: Vettaa | February 15, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

You have to wonder who she bribed.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 15, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary is the past. Obama and McCain are the future."

AHHAhahahahaha. Give me a *break*. McCain? The FUTURE?

This doddering old Bush clone and political coward would take us further down the Bush path of fascism and Big Brother-like, eternal war.

This spineless loser, being thrown to the dogs by Repubs who KNOW they'll lose this year, claimed today that he voted *against* a bill defining waterboarding as illegal because - and dig the flop sweat cascading off McCain as he tried to say this with a straight face - "waterboarding is already illegal."

Um, sorry Johnny (and my, do you sound brainlessly unversed on current events), but your good buddy Dubya says that he can waterboard or do anything else he pleases to prisoners of war.

Typical McCain supporter: a complete liar who thinks Bush has done other than try and destroy this country.

McCain is a steaming pile of feces. Don't you DARE compare a public servant like Hillary Clinton with a coward who votes for endless war, but can't subsidize poor kids' health insurance.

What kind of man properly labels a religious terrorist like Richard Dobson as such, then turns around and *smooches Dobson right on the butt cheeks* in order to get the nomination? You talk about a useless, flip-flopping zero of a candidate.

McCain is as much about the future as a tail-finned Cadillac. Pull your head out.

Posted by: 2229 | February 15, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

lndlouis,

I'm as Democrat. I've voted Democrat in every election since I turned 18, and I can say this with a totally clear conscience that I will ONLY vote Democrat this time IF Obama is the nominee; it not, who knows.

Posted by: coupland12 | February 15, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Some American idiot, beating up on a foreigner for daring to support Hillary:
"You have no slightest idea how terribly destructive inspired by her actions had been."

You have 'no slightest idea' how much you sound like a Cheney boot licker.

Hillary caused zero destruction; the Clinton presidency under Bill was wonderful: a screaming economy, and a world that respected our leaders *despite* christian extremists acting as if having oral sex with a willing adult was the equivalent of...oh, let me take a wild stab here...starting a preemptive war based on lies? Continuing that war when lies are exposed while people are dying for an Iraqi constitution that's a *theocratic*, not democratic, document, or say, turning off portions of the Constitution, suspending habeus corpus and insisting that the country should allow *warrantless wiretapping of ALL Americans* while pretending this'll make our country safer.

Frankly, sir, you sound like one of the terrorists that make up the Bush administration.

Posted by: 2229 | February 15, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

'Tis a pity so many have drank the Obambi Kool-Aid. Can someone please explain to me why so many intelligent, educated people have fallen for his rhetoric? The moment Islamist fascists announce that they have a nuclear device, Obama will fade. The greatest nation in the history of mankind cannot afford to entrust its protection to an empty shell.

Go Hillary! Go McCain!

Posted by: aleklawyer | February 15, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a truly amazing woman. I respect and admire her. That being said, I am an Obama supporter and a proud delegate to my county's convention for Barack. It makes me sad when she says she doesn't recognize caucus states as legitimate. I think that comments like that are beneath her. We all know she'd be happy to proclaim how great they are if she'd won.

Posted by: bryan | February 15, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Clinton counts on superdelegates
Email|Link|Comments (0) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 13, 2008 04:26 PM
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

"This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,'' states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But "whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,'' he said.

With the battle for the Democratic nomination excruciatingly close, supporters of both campaigns are questioning the nominating process. The Clinton camp has suggested that the caucuses -- where Obama has bested Clinton in all but one state -- are inherently undemocratic, since only a small percentage of eligible voters are able to make it to a caucus site and commit the time to vote at a particular hour.

Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

Superdelegates should "vote their conscience,'' despite how their states voted, Wolfson said. Penn noted that the Obama campaign, for example, has not asked Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry to cast superdelegate votes for Clinton, although the Bay State voted overwhelmingly for her in the primary.

The two candidates head into contests next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin; Obama is leading in the polls in both states. The Clinton campaign is pinning its hopes on the March 4 states of Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, but Wolfson said yesterday the campaign is opening offices in every remaining primary and caucus state, including Puerto Rico.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

re: ebubuk2004's post from WorldNetDaily.com

See the first line of the entry about WorldNetDaily on wikipedia:

"WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a far right American conservative online news site[1], founded in 1997."

Nuff said.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

I live in Albuquerque, NM and a registered Democrat. I voted in the Democrat Caucus cum Primary. Here;s my experience.

Took an hour to get to the sign in table. I signed next to my name on the list of registered voters provided by the County Clerk.

The ballots were availabe at another table about 20 steps away. I was not given any kind of verification paper at the sign in table and the poll worker at the ballot table did not ask for anything.

(I could have skipped the sign)

The ballot was about 5x7 size and looked like it was printed at Kinko's. It had no stub or control number.

I marked my choice and deposited in the ballot box.

Friends voting elsewhere in Albuquerque and in the State have told me that their experience was exactly like mine.

No controls were placed on the provisional ballots. In notorious Rio Arriba county 3 ballot boxes and the county Democrat chairman disappeared. Were the boxes found? How many dead persons voted?

The NM vote is a sad joke.

Senator Clinton got 14 delegates and Senator Obama got 12.

Senator Clinton lauded and praised New Mexican. Given the nature of the vote she should of kept her mouth shut just like Senator Obama did.

Oh yeah, I'm voted for Mr. Obama. And, this November I will vote for him if he is on the ballot. If he is not on the ballot, I will write is name him.


Posted by: pbarnett52 | February 14, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

To the Man in Black:

Your noted in your observation that Senator Obama seems to be a decent and honest man...but you mused about his stance on very critical issues of foreign policy.

This is precisely the right thing for us to be thinking about. Frankly I do not see a world of difference between either Democratic candidate's domestic policies (despite what they say and the talking heads blather about).

Where I see Obama's strengths is in Foreign Policy and International Affairs and here I think that he will eat McCain's lunch (despite present prevaling opinion).

There are two primary reasons for this conclusion:

Driven by his absolute mandate to get the center-right Republicans to support him, McCain will have to hew hard to the policies of Dick Cheney and George Bush. Some say he will not - that he's a maverick. To that I point simply to his announcement today that he WILL SUPPORT the Bush policy of torture.

Second, my review of Obama's stance on issues of foreign policy - from legislation agains further nuclear proliferation to the tortue issue...suggest that the brilliant Harvard graduate has many coherent and principled positions that directly confront the stupidlity of Cheney/Bush.

Here, in part, is what Obama said six-months ago about Afghanistan and Bin Laden:

".....Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.

This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

....

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world's most dangerous weapons.

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps's new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions -- sometimes in dangerous places.

As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can't just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.

One component of this integrated approach will be new Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID. These teams will work with civil society and local governments to make an immediate impact in peoples' lives, and to turn the tide against extremism. Where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope has grown dark, and where we are in a position to make a real difference in advancing security and opportunity -- that is where these teams will go.

I will also strengthen our intelligence. This is about more than an organizational chart. We need leadership that forces our agencies to share information, and leadership that never -- ever -- twists the facts to support bad policies. But we must also build our capacity to better collect and analyze information, and to carry out operations to disrupt terrorist plots and break up terrorist networks." ...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To those who read these posts

- and are not turned off by the (20 or so) rabid ranters -

I offer this observation: After enduring for 7 years the very limited perspectives and inacticulate espression of concepts by the person who currently leads our country, reading what Obama has written is a really wonderful experience. Even when I do not agree with him, I can see the stream of logic from where his views are formed.

I've realized that his uplifting speeches are driven by a clear and crisp sense of the world...he connects the dots with grace and power.

What a difference it will be to have him as our President.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 14, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Clinton pays rent; money goes to Obama.

PORTSMOUTH -- Rochester physician Terry Bennett said he believes the only reason Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for renting a building he owns in Portsmouth is because he became the "squeaky wheel."

Now, Bennett said, he will donate the $500 check to Sen. Barack Obama's rival presidential campaign. He said he's doing it because he likes Obama, but also as a statement on the way he feels he was treated by the staff of the Clinton campaign.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/NEWS/802140403

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 14, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

platynum...

Hey, why doesn't PM Martin and Harper not join Bush in signing the Security and Prosperity Partnership that abuses Mexico?

How come Canada doesn't get out of Afghanistan?

How come Canada doesn't close all of its mines that exploit the environment and abuse labor all over Latin America and the world?

How come Canada doesn't stop signing free trade agreements with countries like Colombia that abuse human rights and hurt the interests of farmers there?

Climb off your self-righteous high Canadian moose and take off that backpack with the 142 Maple Leaf patches on it and butt out.

Posted by: shahpesareh | February 14, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Happy Valentines Day. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 14, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

rippercord:
You rail on:
Hillary STARTS with a 47% negative rating. She's had years to correct that, and still, that's the best she can get even now. When the GOP dogs are set loose, you can bet Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica, Norman Hsu, Lincoln bedroom rentals, 1st WTC bombing and more will come up.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I say, when the GOP dogs get set loose and the ruthless McCain takes Obama on, when Obama gets vetted, which he surely will, one way or another, all the things you say against Hillary will pale in comparison.

Obama lied at a recent debate when he said "na na na, I only did about five hours worth of work for Rezko."

The truth: Obama and Rezko have been tight buds for 17 years, ever since Obama got out of law school, where, by the way, Obama pandered his way into being the President of the Law Review by telling conservatives what they wanted to hear, and telling liberals what they wanted to hear.

What does it mean when a person is a liar - is a pathological liar one who believes his own lies, or can't tell the truth from what he just wants others to hear?

Obama and Rezko have had a long history together. For starters, Illinois Senator Barack Obama wrote letters on his official state senate letterhead in Rezko's behalf to city and state officials which netted fourteen million dollars being paid to Rezko out of taxpayer monies.

Obama also sat in on Rezko business deals to impress potential investors.

When Michelle and Barack Obama couldn't afford the 1.9 million dollar mansion they wanted, on the same day they got $300,000 knocked off the price of their mansion, Rezko's wife purchased the inaccessible, adjacent vacant lot next to the Obama Mansion for $650,000.

Later, after Rezko was indicted for "influence peddling and corruption charges, Michelle and Barack Obama purchased that same inaccessible vacant lot next to their mansion for $110,000.

Obama said that was a "mistake," and the media let him fluff that off, plus his lie that he barely had anything to do with Rezko.

Rezko is from Syria and receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east. Rezko was free awaiting trial, but the FBI picked Rezko up a few days ago because they discovered REzko was "moving large amounts of money around," and he is now confined, awaiting trial on Feb. 25th.

Couple this devious relationship with the fact that Obama worked out of an office in the anti-Israel radical Trinity Church when he was doing "community work on the streets of Chicago."

Michelle and Barack Obama were married in that radical Trinity Church, which, is also affiliated with Farrakut. Obama got the title for his book, "Audacity of Hope," from one of Rev. Wright's sermons.

Obama claims to be a Christian and has gone to the same Christian Church for 20 years.
The radical anti-Israel Church is the church Obama is talking about.

It is my opinion, because of these close associations of Obama, that Obama is a security risk to our country.

The media should be careful. They gave us one bad president, and now they are trying to give us an even more dangerous one. President Clinton was being kind when he said that "Obama is a roll of the dice."

Obama and Rezko, and Rev. Wright and Farrakut cannot have access to our White House, our government intelligence, and our nuclear weapons.

Hillary will give us universal health care, bring our troops home from Iraq, and work to make our economy strong again.
* * * * * *
About the article on this board,

I say: This sounds like Obama is one of the same old insiders in Washington doing the same old thing and expecting a different result.

The chief Exelon lobbyist on the Obama bill was David C. Brown. He told me that Exelon supported the "spirit" of the Obama legislation, in contrast to some other nuclear operators, who opposed more regulation of the industry.


Brown says that he met with the Obama staffer responsible for the notification legislation, Todd Atkinson, half a dozen times between January and June 2006, while the bill was being considered by the Senate environment committee.

In addition, he helped arrange a five-minute meeting between Exelon CEO (and Obama contributor) John W. Rowe and Senator Obama outside a Senate hearing room on March 29, at which the bill was briefly discussed.

As Brown remembers this conversation, Rowe told Obama that he supported his bill, but that the company had some concerns about the language. According to Brown, Obama replied, "Fine, work with Todd."

For the record, Obama has not received any corporate contributions from Exelon. But senior Exelon executives have contributed more than $160,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and $46,000 to his 2004 Senate run

Obama claims to want to "change" things in Washington, to eliminate lobbyists from influencing legislation.

Obama had legislation passed so that lobbyists couldn't buy lunch for people if they were sitting down, but lobbyists could buy lunch for congress people if they were standing up.

Is this what Obama meant when he said that first "one stood up, then another stood up, then they all stood up.?" gw

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 14, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

It's so sad, and I'm furious at the media, but I want Obama to win.

I'm a strong Hillary Clinton supporter; I think she truly would be the best-qualified and I appreciate everything that she has done. However, the media has become so enamored with the "Obamamentum underdog" story that little else can satisfy Americans around the world too biased and ignorant to evaluate the successes Hillary has had over the years. I do like Obama, a lot, and he is a refreshing chane and inspiration, but - I certainly don't see how he's better-equipped than Hillary.

There is a faction that has consistently, passionately disliked Hillary, especially on the GOP side, for whatever reasons (although one main reason, her '94 healthcare disaster, was largely their own fault for unduly bashing). Then there are those who simply find her impersonable, don't support her stances on the issues, and don't like her style of politics. However, many don't like her because they are so repulsed by the idea of a female president and simply find not reasons, but excuses to hate her.

It's a damn shame. But largely because he's received much more favorable press coverage (I truly cannot remember the last time the media portrayed Hillary in a pleasant light), I believe that Obama is much better able to unify the country. He seems to me simply like a smooth talker, if genuine and inspiring; I would much prefer Hillary, but the country needs unity right now, and therefore, needs Obama.

Posted by: Burgundy1797 | February 14, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Danielmcmartin,

I live in Chicago.

I supported Obama in his run for the Senate in 06. I went to his rallies, I put his sign in my window. I voted for him.

I wanted him to fight Bush from day 1. Make a skillful speech on the Senate floor!

End the War NOW!

He hasn't done anything. He's a skillful politician in that he knows how to play the game.

I got a 2 year head start on you, the speeches where thin after you realize he's like everyone else.

Sure, the experience gap is not great. But Obama is a stretch of everyone's imagination.

Obama is not going to get at 35% of the vote in the U.S. off the bat.

Hillary is not as well liked. But to think that Obama can just keep this train rolling without any real attacks on him is completely naive.

Look at the torture vote today.

McCain. Against the ban on torture.
Hillary. NOT PRESENT.
Obama.NOT PRESENT

Are you surprised by Hillary? No. Am I surprised by Obama...NO!

Obama is a pol. We know Hillary is a pol.

Obama is NOT a UNITER. HE's a Democrat. Just wait. He's more liberal than Hillary is, and the RNC will let the independents know that. Then a Vietnam War who is more right of center veteran won't seem so unappealing compared to a Senator further left of center.

Posted by: camasca | February 14, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Nice posting Gandalf!

The more and more the details of Obama's plan comes out, the better it will get.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

It's so sad, and I'm furious at the media, but I want Obama to win.

I'm a strong Hillary Clinton supporter; I think she truly would be the best-qualified and I appreciate everything that she has done. However, the media has become so enamored with the "Obamamentum underdog" story that little else can satisfy Americans around the world too biased and ignorant to evaluate the successes Hillary has had over the years. I do like Obama, a lot, and he is a refreshing chane and inspiration, but - I certainly don't see how he's better-equipped than Hillary.

There is a faction that has consistently, passionately disliked Hillary, especially on the GOP side, for whatever reasons (although one main reason, her '94 healthcare disaster, was largely their own fault for unduly bashing). Then there are those who simply find her impersonable, don't support her stances on the issues, and don't like her style of politics. However, many don't like her because they are so repulsed by the idea of a female president and simply find not reasons, but excuses to hate her.

It's a damn shame. But largely because he's received much more favorable press coverage (I truly cannot remember the last time the media portrayed Hillary in a pleasant light), I believe that Obama is much better able to unify the country. He seems to me simply like a smooth talker, if genuine and inspiring; I would much prefer Hillary, but the country needs unity right now, and therefore, needs Obama.

Posted by: Burgundy1797 | February 14, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

To those who care -

Here is an excerpt from Obama's talk yesterday at the Janesville, WI General Motors Assembly Plant.

".... A few weeks ago I offered an economic stimulus package based on a simple principle - we should get immediate relief into the hands of people who need it the most and will spend it the quickest. I proposed sending each working family a $500 tax cut and each senior a $250 supplement to their Social Security check. And if the economy gets worse, we should double those amounts.

Neither George Bush nor Hillary Clinton had that kind of immediate, broad-based relief in their original stimulus proposals, but I'm glad that the stimulus package that was recently passed by Congress does.

We still need to go further, though, and make unemployment insurance available for a longer period of time and for more Americans who find themselves out of work. We should also provide assistance to state and local governments so that they don't slash critical services like health care or education.

For those Americans who are facing the brunt of the housing crisis, I've proposed a fund that would provide direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud. We'd also help those who are facing closure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes. And I'd provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

To make sure that folks aren't tricked into purchasing loans they can't afford, I've proposed tough new penalties for those who commit mortgage fraud, and a Home Score system that would allow consumers to compare various mortgage products so that they can find out whether or not they'll be able to afford the payments ahead of time.

The second major economic challenge we have to address is the cost crisis facing the middle-class and the working poor. As the housing crisis spills over into other parts of the economy, we've seen people's entire life savings wiped out in an instant. It's the result of skyrocketing costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing benefits that are pushing more and more Americans towards a debt spiral from which they can't escape. We have to give them a way out by cutting costs, putting more money in their pockets, and rebuilding a safety net that's become badly frayed over the last decades.

One of the principles that John Edwards has passionately advanced is that this country should be rewarding work, not wealth. That starts with our tax code, which has been rigged by lobbyists with page after page of loopholes that benefit big corporations and the wealthiest few. For example, we should not be giving tax breaks to corporations that make their profits in some other country with some other workers. Before she started running for President, Senator Clinton actually voted for this loophole.

I'll change our tax code so that it's simple, fair, and advances opportunity, not the agenda of some lobbyist. I am the only candidate in this race who's proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans. This is a tax cut -paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens - that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying, and it'll be worth up to $1000 for a working family. We'll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect. Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I'll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. And I won't wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage - I'll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it's not just a minimum wage, but a living wage. Because that's the change that working Americans need. .....

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 14, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

How are they going to handle Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other growing problems in the middle east?

Obama doesn't have as much experience - but he's not the corrupt scoundral that Hillary and McCaine have proven to be.

Posted by: theman_in_black | February 14, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

I agree Man in Black!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

We need to e-mail everyone we know in Texas to remind the good citizens of the Lone Star State of the way the Clintons handled Waco.

If they found it necessary to fill a building with fuel - ignite the building - the shoot the burning men, women, and children as they fleed from an inferno.

Posted by: theman_in_black | February 14, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

citizenxx - you're pretty violent in your posts. vulgar as well. is your wife ok and safe? or is she somewhere tied up in your house and we should we send the police over? you may want to pick the potato chip crumbs off your sweatshirt and calm down. it's also not acceptable or in compliance with policies here to be threatening. or did you really read them?
----------------------------
Who is trying to strong arm and silence opinion?

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 10:47 PM

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Thinker,

What world do you live on? Threatening? Where? When? Again, like the Clinton machine, attack without substance, make derogatory and baseless statements, and then run away.

I consider you a joke. When you can really answer honest questions posed to you, feel free to join the adult table. Until then, work on the list.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Thinks, CitizenXX has a point. Your all talk. List the experience Hillary has. Don't get all petty like you are and divert the question into unwarranted flame war.

Posted by: danielmcmartin | February 14, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama - War We Need To Win. He stated the obvious. Wooo hooo.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

What sexist slur? Teat? I have them also. It is a phrase... Are you one of those women Dems that back Hillary because, "I have always wanted to see a woman in the WH in my lifetime?" LIST HER EXPERIENCE.

I want a unifying president. I could care less what color or gender or race. Obama can unify our country and our party. Hillary is a polarizing figure, who also happens to be highly hated by the GOP. Do you think she can pull the indies like Obama can? The middle of the road GOP'ers? She can't, and I dare you to argue that she can.

Please, now, the list!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

This place is degenerating. McCain is on Larry King. Better things to be aware of. Bye

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line. Hillary can't beat McCain. Obama might beat McCain. The Supreme Court's at stake.

Don't be stupid.

Posted by: staxnet | February 14, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

so many sticks and stones here. someone must be saying something so intelligent you can't stand it. threatened by intelligent gab? tsk tsk tsk

citizenxx - you're pretty violent in your posts. vulgar as well. is your wife ok and safe? or is she somewhere tied up in your house and we should we send the police over? you may want to pick the potato chip crumbs off your sweatshirt and calm down. it's also not acceptable or in compliance with policies here to be threatening. or did you really read them?

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007


After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."

The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 14, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't beat McCain. Obama might beat McCain. The Supreme Court's at stake. Bottom line.

Don't be stupid.

Posted by: staxnet | February 14, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Thinker wrote: "If he can't be honest with the American people and give us anything but speeches AT us - we may as well stay with Mr. Bush.. that's all we're getting now."

Obama released his tax returns for everyone to see. Hillary didn't. Who's more honest?

Posted by: vmunikoti | February 14, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Why the sexist slur so called citizenXX? Don't care for women?

Posted by: mjk47 | February 14, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Thinker and other teat mongers,

I have read your posts, as have others, and again I ask you teat mongers:

LIST ME OUT HER EXPERIENCE:

Don't just say it. Don't attack another, as a way to deflect the question. What is the experience she has? Huh.... All negative attacks on Obama, which is a typical Clintonian ploy, and no answers to the question posed.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Mr Obama will reach across any aisle and any stage at any time and hug any person for any thing they can give him. No doubt we can trust him to hug and kiss the next President of the United States - John McCain. Because that's what the result will be if he gets this nomination. This isn't a primary - it's the freaking election itself. We need debates, for this man to come clean about who he is. If he can't be honest with the American people and give us anything but speeches AT us - we may as well stay with Mr. Bush.. that's all we're getting now.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's secretary of labor and the head of Clinton's economic transition team has the following to say about the Health Care Proposal Debate:

Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's.

That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including all children and young adults up to 25 years old.

Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance -- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated -- that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 14, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Silly people....

Im an Australian and i have been following this election with great interest since Obama declared he was running. And before i give my opinion on this let me make it clear that regardless of the fact i cannot vote in your election i will have my 2c worth. Why? Because whomever you vote to lead your country will have a direct impact on Australia, we are very close allies. Not only that but any negative/positive affect a president has on the US will ripple throughout the world, why? Because that is how you have positioned yourselves.

On with it then. I have been reading these blogs and their comments, independent articles, news pieces etc trying to get as much of an un-bias point of view as possible. Im only 24 so the furthest back i can remember of the US political system is Bush Senior. Coming from outside the US i have always heard from my parents, uncles, aunts etc that the US is a great and grand country. In my life i have never had that impression. My impression is negative, and that's because of how the country has acted since i have been around. Your political system is arrogant, greedy, self absorbed and holds itself on a pedestal.

Now something HAD to happen for the view of an entire nation, especially a nation that represented freedom and hope, to be altered so drastically from the perspective of other nations in the space of a generation. And i know for a fact it isn't just me who thinks this, friends, family, strangers etc all have the same opinion. What was it that changed this perspective?? Im not going to blame the people of the US because i have alot of American friends from all over the country that i consider good mates, laid back and radical people from all walks of life.

Your government, your leaders that's the problem. (which is obvious i know im just ranting to drill the point home).

You need to elect a president that is going to not only lead your country back to it's former glory from a worldwide image perspective (this should be a secondary goal) but also someone who is going to look internally into the issues your country is facing, your economy, health care, employment, exports etc. Why are the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer? Both candidates have released lucid plans for this which are pretty good. Health care etc. But do you realise that these plans still have to get approved?? Which elect is less likely to take a 'donation' from corporations to keep tax's low for them?? Bugger your loyalties off, forget what you think you know and re-investigate the issues your country is having. Then look at candidates and what they represent. Hillary is a stone cold politician. Obama is the new kid on the block with alot of pluck about him. What is seen and portrayed by the majority of the media is nothing but game faces. Hillary is loosing because of the 'wow' affect Obama is having against the masses. Look past that and look at the facts. Hillary having 'more experience' than Obama is fair dinkum BS. Look at their past. Obama has more time as an elected official than Hillary. Hillary has more time sitting in the white house as an off the charts adviser to Bill.

I personally if you couldn't tell by now am a Obama supporter. When you actually listen to and read his goals and proposals (not his crowd wow'ing speeches) he has the intelligence and conviction to do good for the US.

The United States Of America needs to check itself. You really do need change, to get out of the 'rut' your in. Get your troops home, fix your economy, work yourself out because your circling the drain in the eyes of the world that is watching you. I mean come on guys seriously you invaded another country purely on the coat tails of the fear of terror. Now don't get me wrong all terroist should be hunted down and dealt with in the proper fashion. But your current 'leader' invaded Iraq for what? What did he find? His daddy's old nemesis?? Oil. Where are the weapons that were a threat to the world?? So many billion's of $$ spent for nothing, lives lost, credibility down the drain for nothing. Do you really want a president who is going to continue this 'status quo' in the country?

And don't dare give me this 'Hillary is ready to be our nations leader' because she isn't and never will be, nor will Obama. How can anybody be prepared to lead a nation? Especially the US. If she stands for a true democratic nation and wants to bring about change and positive growth then she needs to step aside and let Obama take the reigns, stand aside as an adviser to him. You need to choose the leader who will inspire you to stand up and say with one voice. 'Enough is enough'.

Take it from an outsider you need Obama. I along with the rest of the country don't want to hear your general election results and think 'not again'. We would rather think 'this should be good'.

Now for all you die hard Hillary fans who refuse to even open your eyes and consider any of this. Don't bother flaming because i don't care. Comments welcome, not flaming =)

Peace

Posted by: danielmcmartin | February 14, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

mjk47 says:

"Clinton is by far the more qualified candidate and yet so many democrats are blinded..."

Again, you teat mongers, give me a list of this so clearly evident experience she has. List it out. Prove it, and bring it to light.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry if you don't like the news. The media will under-report it anyhow.

News coverage has put Obama before Clinton in debate ads, show plugs, etc. for quite some time now. If they're not biased, I'd like to know why they changed.

Posted by: sinesk1 | February 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Citizenxx - What's the point? I don't get it.

Mr. Obama's words: "John McCain started attacking me on economic policy, which I thought was flattering. It's clear that he knows who his opponent is gonna be." Well, I guess Mr. Obama has decided he has won -he is not waiting for the voice of We The People... so we don't have to have to hear the voice of the people in Michigan, Hawaii, Ohio, Texas, others. WOW! And you thought Bill Clinton had an ego. At least he had a record of achievements as a basis for his. He was a great president.

amstaur: ahhhhh. let me guess. Per Michelle Obama, Mr. Obamas been making it to all of his daughter's ballerina recitals. A great Dad. hmmm. And every American can relate to that???? We all have daughters who are taking ballerina lessons? Or, should we feel like his daughters have things we don't have? He's a favorite of the "Starbucks latte" crowd, as opposed to Hillary's "Dunkin Donut" supporters. And he is supported by the educated vs. Hillary's support from the not so well educated. He's definitely supported by the white troll boys club and the Oprah book club. He portrays himself as a "uniter". Yes, he's uniting anyone who will follow his float. He'll use and take anyone along who is buying his masks. He's been building this campaign for years, beginnign with his two books about HIMSELF so he could raise money and with a marketing team - he is a PRODUCT of Mr. Axelrod. Dont' fool yourself, be a fool or be fooled. We'll all be the victims of this dupe. Things are too serious in the world, too much is at stake to be playing Pied Piper with our childrens.

When things sound good for Hillary, he uses them. Now I guess that's more flattering than anything Mr. McCain could ever say. But it's also dishonest.

Hillary is supported, in contrast, by women - who are always wiser than all of the above. They don't like weak women, they get bored so quick. And they don't like strong women cause their hip to their tricks. The boys club of DC is looking for their puppet newbie. Wake up and smell the latte.

I'm a proud, intelligent, informed Dunkin Donuts Democrat!!!
Everyone knows lattes are over prices and so over rated.

Go Hillary.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Citizen XX,

Did you find Obama's vote "Not Present" on whether torture should be banned, inspiring?

Is that the kind of change you want, the change that says, "my vote doesn't matter, so I'm going to campaign", rather than get up and shout to the world, "no more torture!"????

She's got the experience. She's been attacked by Republicans for 15 years. She knows what its like to and to be strong armed.

Being a Democrat in Illinois, where the Democrats control everything, is no real experienc for reaching across the aisle. The Democrats in Illinois hit the Republicans over the head with a hammer when they want something passed. Or you follow orders from your leaders.

She tried to pass health care reform once, and lost. You learn from your failures, Obama has never attempted anything at that scale.

When it comes down to spouse talk, I'd rather have Bill giving advice than Michelle Obama. Nothing against Mrs. Obama, but she doesn't have any legislative or executive experience. I'm sorry, but I'd rather consult someone who had to work with Republicans for 6 years.

Obama has got nothing in comparison to Hillary for this job. Again, Illinois is as Blue as they come. The mayor is a Democrat, the largest county is run by Democrats, the Legislature is run by the Democrats, the Governor is a Democrat.

His reaching across the aisle in Illinois, even during in his tenure, pales in what Hillary was up against with a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, WITH A COMPLETELY POISONED ATMOSPHERE by Bush.

Hillary is the Democrat for the job of President.

Posted by: camasca | February 14, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

To Gandolf the Grey:

Well put! Nicely done! Bravo!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

When I consider why there is so much animosity expressed against Hillary Clinton from so many democrats I conclude that much of it stems from the fact that the republicans' decade and a half long campaign to villify and discredit her at every turn has been effective. It looks like the republican propaganda machine will once again succeed in convincing Americans to act against their own interests. Clinton is by far the more qualified candidate and yet so many democrats are blinded by a negative bias that somehow she represents the status quo or some past they would rather forget. Let's keep in mind that the status quo has been the current administration for the last seven years and the "past" has largely been defined by those who have taken every possible opportunity to discredit her. Why have they been so interested in discrediting her? Because her powerful adversaries perceive her as a true champion of the American people and someone who ould actually work to their benefit. Wake Up.

Posted by: mjk47 | February 14, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse


To camasca:

I repeat my question! Justify your teat sucking hate mongers claim of more experience, and show me her experience. You know, all 35 years of it. You seem to have other things to say besides just answering the question. You teat mongers seem to be ready to so quickly throw the experience statement around. NOW BACK IT UP! Unless you just want to say, "Experience by association".

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Influenced by the paragon of truth and virtue to whom she is married, Hillary stepped across the line of good judgment and common sense and has suffered a wound fatal to her Presidential aspirations.

Why? How?

Hillary Clinton's vote aided and abetted George W. Bush in his frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution when she agreed to authorize him to invade Iraq.

"Our Constitution expressly PROHIBITS an unprovoked and pre-emptive war against any nation in the world. It also prohibits the Congress from delegating the authority to declare a war to the President of the United States. This is one of the major pillars of the separation of powers."

Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - AFTER - she discussed with senior Democratic colleagues the likelihood that he would take the authorization and use it to mount an invasion of Iraq.

Since then, in increasingly clumsy attempts to re-write history, she claims that all she did was to authorize an invasion if all other diplomatic negotiations failed. In this explanation she is once again standing with her finger in the wind trying to position herself for a general election.

Better that she stands behind her vote - or admits she was wrong - but again, in the debate in L.A., after doing well on domestic issues, she refused once more to choose on which side of the issue she stands....

She spent over 6 minutes in that debate flip-flopping and stumbling around on stage in embarrassing fashion simply trying to explain HER own war authorization vote. She never did. Finally the moderator had to ask was she "duped by the dope." No, she said, adamantly.

Okay,...then WHY did she vote FOR the WAR?

Remember, she knew the Democrats would not carry the issue...a No vote would have cemented her in opposition to the stupid war. It would not have affected the vote outcome. Her N.Y. Democratic constituents would have cheered a NO vote!

Why did she vote YES????

Why did she vote to join with the Republicans and give to George Bush the authority to take this country into a pre-emptive war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of American soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors?

She brags about her support of children...what about our sons and daughters in uniform?

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq because she did not want to poison the well from which she thought (way back in 2002) she would have to drink when going up against a Republican in 2008.

She voted "YES" to insulate herself from Republican attack.

In other words,

...she took a position with an eye on HER future - and NOT the future of the United States.

She did not think the issue through. Just like George Bush.

Hillary Clinton took her stance on the War with her eye on her political career.

There is no other explanation for her vote - unless she supported the war and is now ducking that conviction.

Either way - she comes off looking like a cheap politician parsing her answers so as to deflect the truth. But again, remember who she learned from -- she was trained by Bill.

Hillary is guilty of the worst sort of political posturing for the worst possible reason - her own career. The Republicans have their knives and spears sharpened and ready for the thrust.

McCain will simply say, "But Hillary - YOU voted FOR the WAR." "You used your experience and judgment and voted YES for the language of the bill....

(language, in part, that stated...)
................

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

..............................

Hillary's experience and judgment failed her in 2002, just as it is failing her now in 2008, in the inept management of her own campaign.

HILLARY CLINTON MUST BE DENIED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.


Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.

3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.

7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.

10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.

13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.

15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,

125 on poverty and public assistance,

112 crime fighting bills,

97 economic bills,

60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,

21 ethics reform bills,

15 gun control,

6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **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, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Pass it on....It's impressive

Posted by: AverageJane | February 14, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

JUST GOT THIS FROM THE CLITON CAMPAIGN:

Dear XXXXXX,


My friends ask all the time: "What can we do to help your mom win?"

Well today I have an answer for them and for all of us who support my mom: we can make 1,000,000 calls.

OK, no one person has to make all 1,000,000 calls! But supporters like you and my friends are the best people to speak out on my mom's behalf -- and we need to talk to a lot of voters in the next few weeks.

It's simple: the more people we talk to about why each of us so strongly supports my mom, the more people will get out and vote for her.

If you sign up today to make calls for as little as an hour a week, you can help us reach 1,000,000 voters over the phone before the next big contests.

Please help my mom -- and all of us -- win by signing up to call voters for her campaign!

It's an amazing experience to meet so many people who are working so hard on my mom's campaign and to meet so many more who want to get involved and make a difference in this critical moment.

In less than three weeks, we're facing big races in states like Ohio and Texas. In fact, there are races all over the country where my mom needs help -- and we have to contact a lot of voters in a very short time! I know so many of you have shown a ton of dedication to my mom since Super Tuesday, and I'm sure that working together we will have no problem making our 1,000,000 call goal!

Can you help out? I hope so! Sign up for as little as an hour of calls a week, and you can make a huge difference toward reaching all those people in the next three weeks.

Sign up now to help us call 1,000,000 people for my mom.

Thank you so much for all you're doing to help my mom win!

Chelsea

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

I am waiting for the "Nanny nanny boo booo..."

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I so love the Hillary Clinton and her ideas for a big government solutions for every problem us Americans face...

ok whatever.

Go OBAMA!!

Posted by: irishspacemonk | February 14, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Platynm: if you love Hillary so much, why don't you marry her? =P

Posted by: vmunikoti | February 14, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Citizen XX,

I know that Hillary plays rough. She does have more experience on the national level and has seen first hand how a President can get things done.

Hillary is no saint.

Obama is a strong campaigner, a good politician, and an intelligent man.

But he isn't "change" for anything. He says "change" in such a general way.

He's not bringing any more change to Washington than Hillary is, and I believe Hillary has more skill.

I want to kick the Republicans to the curb. The Clintons are the ones to do it.

Posted by: camasca | February 14, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Help me fill in the details:

Clinton and her "35 years" of experience is at best suspect. Sen. Clinton has claimed that due to her experience, she is ready to be President on day one. What really is the 35 years of experience that makes her so ready?

Would that experience include the years from 1977 to 1993, when she was helping her husband campaign, and having Chelsea? During which time when not helping Bill, she worked at one of Arkansas' largest law firms; the Rose Law Firm. While there, she represented large corporations, as well as served on the numerous corporate boards.

Would that experience also include time during her husbands two terms in the Arkansas Governors Mansion and White house? A time in which she did not hold a security clearance, was not given any of her husbands daily intelligence briefing, nor did she attend any of the National Security Council meetings. (Dec. 26 New York Times)

Clinton did work for the Children's Defense Fund, yet did so for less then a year. That is the extent of, and only, full-time job in the nonprofit sector that she has ever had. Oh yea, she also spent a brief moment as a law professor.

She has been an elected official for only seven years. Obama has been an Illinois state senator from 1996 until 2004, at which time he became a State senator to date. That gives Obama five more years of legislative experience then Clinton.

And what makes her ready for the big chair on day one?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

platynm,

It's hard to see where you would somehow connect Barack Obama with responsibility for the Iraq invasion or any other invasion, especially when he was one of the few sane voices that opposed the Iraq fiasco (see his speech October 2002) at a time when others (think Hillary) thought supporting the war was politically marvelous!

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

I see that, in Wisconsin, Clinton's spokesman called Obama a "chicken" for not agreeing to a debate.

If I were Obama's Wisconsin spokesman, I'd issue a press release: "We're rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off us, and sticks to you."

I'd then stick out my tongue.

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

To camasca:

That is your reply. Justify your teat sucking hate mongers, and show me her experience. You know, all 35 years of it.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Addendum to previous:

The rest of the world has forgotten what it is like without the influx of the greenback.

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

Citizen XX,

Give a list of how Obama cleaned up the sleaze and corruption in Cook County and Springfield, Illinois.

He didn't change anything. Did he.

Posted by: camasca | February 14, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

africanqueen202 wrote:

"Men have been given a chance to run the most powerful nation in the world --- The USofA and look where it is now in the world --- it is the most disliked and disrespected country. I think we need to bring Hillary and give her a chance to bring back the glory days of being the most powerful nation in the world"
---------------------------------------------------

If your point is "men bad," "women good," I don't think you have one. World history does not boil down to genitalia or men like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi and others would not be revered while women like Catherine the Great, Imelda Marcos, Elena Ceausescu and others would be regarded as despots.

Gender hatred: It's not happening for me.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I would not any problem financially butting out of the world for 1 year.

Let some of the other countries pump money into the global village.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

To the Hillary sycophants:

She say's she has 35 years of experience. I would like to see the kinds of experience that will make her, more then Sen. Obama, ready on day one.

So, all those people on the Hillary teat please give me a breakdown of all this experience that she has. You know all that experience that makes her so much more ready to run this country?

Let me see that long and justifiable list, please!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 14, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh platynm

You can have Bill also!

O, Canada!

Posted by: anonthistime | February 14, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Your country invades Iraq on the basis of flat out lies and you invite me to ''butt out''?

How about your country ''butting out'' of places where it is not welcome.

Good night and may I remind you that Barack has said he's going to change the world - please ask him to butt out.


Posted by: platynm | February 14, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Draft Bill Clinton for VP. Obama just can't win it without Bill, and Hillary will lose her senate seat if she and Obama get defeated by McCain.


Posted by: blasmaic | February 14, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Draft Bill Clinton for VP. Obama just can't win it without Bill, and Hillary will lose her senate seat if she and Obama get defeated by McCain.


Posted by: blasmaic | February 14, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's recap, shall we?

(My tribute to Hillary lovers and Obama haters who like to cut and paste their posts):

Hillary STARTS with a 47% negative rating. She's had years to correct that, and still, that's the best she can get even now. When the GOP dogs are set loose, you can bet Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica, Norman Hsu, Lincoln bedroom rentals, 1st WTC bombing and more will come up.

What does Obama have going for him? Visit www.barackobama.com and find out, if you dare. In the meantime, keep your generalities to yourself. This is one white guy out of millions who adores voting for strong, honest Democrats, both women (my own Sen. McCaskill, for instance) and men, like Obama.

When Clinton was president in 1994, Democrats lost senators, congressmen, governors and big-city mayors to Republicans. He (not Hillary) won re-election in 1996 not because of any battle scars over Whitewater, Vince Foster, Filegate, Travelgate, etc., but because this great Democratic hero betrayed other Democrats to save his own skin. He followed the advice of GOP guru Dick Morris to create the policy of "triangulation" (Wikipedia that one), which gave up Democratic gains in favor of GOP policy proposals and cut the legs out from other Democrats.

GALLUP DAILY TRACKING POLL: Obama gains on Clinton, leading her narrowly

DEMOCRATIC POPULAR VOTE: Obama ahead some 200,000 votes over Clinton

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES WON: Obama 23, Clinton 11

DEMOCRATIC PLEDGED DELEGATES WON: Obama leads

OVERALL DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES: Obama leads

AGAINST MCCAIN: OBAMA WINS, HILLARY LOSES

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Why are we just getting more of the same in Washington?

Let's see the Senate vote against banning waterboarding, a form of torture.

Now torture is cruelty, and certainly cruelty could be the simplest definitions of evil.

Yet one Senator, tortured himself, named John McCain, votes AGAINST banning waterboarding.

Hillary Clinton votes, NOT PRESENT.

Barack Obama, Mr. "Yes We Can", votes, "Yes We Can.....be...NOT PRESENT".

Now supporters of Obama and Clinton say their votes didn't matter. I couldn't disagree with you more.

This is torture. These people are supposed to be our leaders. They should VOICE their leadership by getting off the campaign trail and saying they are against cruelty with their vote.

The real change candidates exited the race a long time ago.

The only change in Washington will be policy, real leadership, real change in approach to politics won't.

Posted by: camasca | February 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Platynm, I apologize =(

Posted by: vmunikoti | February 14, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Men have been given a chance to run the most powerful nation in the world --- The USofA and look where it is now in the world --- it is the most disliked and disrespected country. I think we need to bring Hillary and give her a chance to bring back the glory days of being the most powerful nation in the world

Posted by: africanqueen2020 | February 14, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe anyone in Roswell would have voted for Ms. "I'm-So-Ready-To-Lead" with an ET lookalike opposing her on the ballot. Could it have been Ann Coulter's endorsement?

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 14, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else see that John Lewis is switching as a superdelegate from Clinton to Obama. NYTimes picked it up.

That, if you are keeping score, is 2 points for Obama.

Courageous move by Rep. Lewis.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 14, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger wrote:

"And Thinker is intended as irony I imagine?"

-----------------------------------------------------
How could it be otherwise?

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that Hillary and Bill Clinton will deliver the super delegates to Hillary. Further, I believe they will use every dirty trick in the book to defeat Senator Obama. As a Caucausian retired Professor of History, I assure you I will NOT vote for Hill/Bill and neither will many of my friends. It is too bad the Democrats would have won the election --- not with Hillary but with Obama. What a shame, the demos one more time have screwed it up. Dr. Fred W. Hicks

Posted by: fwh33 | February 14, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

And Thinker is intended as irony I imagine?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Thinker,

there you go with broad generalizations again. No one's saying it's better to be "pure" and lose. But it is better to be pure and win. And speaking of winning:

GALLUP DAILY TRACKING POLL: Obama gains on Clinton, leading her narrowly

DEMOCRATIC POPULAR VOTE: Obama ahead some 200,000 votes over Clinton

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES WON: Obama 23, Clinton 11

DEMOCRATIC PLEDGED DELEGATES WON: Obama leads

OVERALL DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES: Obama leads

AGAINST MCCAIN: OBAMA WINS, HILLARY LOSES


Yeah, pal. We're backing Obama.

You're back in the past.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Jemma1. Absolutely true.

Jemma1 said: The Clinton haters are so pathetic. The Clintons have done more for this country than any political couple since FDR and Eleanor. And yes, Eleanor was political. If the Obama lovers knew a little history, they would not be so ready to back a man whose substance doesn't match his rhetoric. He's accomplished nothing, nada, zip. A C-Span caller had it exactly right. Obama is an empty suit.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Jemma,

If you would like to review the history of Bill's tenure, I'm happy to do so. Do Enron and Worldcom ring a bell? Do the initials NAFTA mean anything to you? Have you ever seen him take credit for the economy that had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the tech bubble? Do you remember the woman after woman after woman that he had slept with come forth? Do you realize there are more of them? Many more??

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger. What a perfect name for you! I can't even believe it! Is it prented? Like Mr. Obama? Oh yes, I would follow Michelle Obamas opinions... ha ha ha ha ha
She didn't even know that Condaleezza was on McCains short list for VP until Larry King told her the other night. Did you watch? I'm guessing not. She was pretty silly.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

As a visitor may I ask why a small handful of trollers are allowed to
use this message board as their personal space?

Start your own blog please and give others a chance to express an opinion.

Posted by: platynm | February 14, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

"I am not eligible to vote in the U.S. election, as I am Canadian. ... She's a fine woman who would easily be elected as president or prime minister had she lived in another country."


platynm, I understand that any citizen of Canada can be elected prime minister. I also understand that a person can apply for Canadian citizenship after being a permanent resident for 3 years.

You are more than welcome to have Hillary. After all, she, a native of Illinois and citizen of Arkansas carpetbagged herself into being a US senator from NY state.

Posted by: anonthistime | February 14, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton haters are so pathetic. The Clintons have done more for this country than any political couple since FDR and Eleanor. And yes, Eleanor was political. If the Obama lovers knew a little history, they would not be so ready to back a man whose substance doesn't match his rhetoric. He's accomplished nothing, nada, zip. A C-Span caller had it exactly right. Obama is an empty suit.

Posted by: Jemma1 | February 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

platnm: I am not eligible to vote in the U.S. election, as I am Canadian.

Then how aboot you stop butting in, eh?! This is not aboot Canada. No one cares.

Posted by: vmunikoti | February 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

anthony,

I understand your sentiment, but if you think Hillary is capable of getting her Democratic opposition to rally around her after the type of campaign she has run, you are naive. You can either chalk it up to the Clinton's incredible narcissism, OR to perhaps the biggest personal blind spot in the world. Although, the two tend to go hand in hand. They made this decision and we will have to live with the consequences. Sound familiar?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Thinker wrote:

"rippermccord. You prove my point perfect.y"

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

I don't think either of us did, actually.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

New Mexico is a Democratic Machine state. I have a friend who remembers that when he was growing up in Albuquerque, Democratic operatives would press $20 bills into his grandmother's hand to help her with 'expenses' the day before the election.

Maybe that's where HRC's $140M went.

This woman will stop at nothing to formalize what she already believes she is entitled to.

"Hillary has been a positive change agent for 35 years"

JamesDC-I have been waiting for someone to explain this. Care to give it a try? What solutions are you referring to?

Robertguinto: "Increased attacks on illegal aliens"? One statistic to back that up please?

Posted by: MacRandall | February 14, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Thanks jameswhanger and rippermccord for 'proving' my point. Better to lose and be 'pure', eh people? After all, we are right and everyone else is wrong.

Sigh!

The way we are going it will be 2032 before the Democratic party is ready.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 14, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 08:48 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Still not thinking I see! You sound like my brother-in-law except he is an ultra right winger. You too should get together maybe you could come up with the ultimate plan to derail the freight train heading your way.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

New Mexico is a Democratic Machine state. I have a friend who remembers that when he was growing up in Albuquerque, Democratic operatives would press $20 bills into his grandmother's hand to help her with 'expenses' the day before the election.

Maybe that's where HRC's $140M went.

This woman will stop at nothing to formalize what she already believes she is entitled to.

"Hillary has been a positive change agent for 35 years"

JamesDC-I have been waiting for someone to explain this. Care to give it a try? What solutions are you referring to?

Robertguinto: "Increased attacks on illegal aliens"? One statistic to back that up please?

Posted by: MacRandall | February 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will destroy the Democratic Party before they are done. It's who they are. They can't help themselves.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Here'a another thing for you Clinton backers to feast on:

When Clinton was president in 1994, Democrats lost senators, congressmen, governors and big-city mayors to Republicans. He (not Hillary) won re-election in 1996 not because of any battle scars over Whitewater, Vince Foster, Filegate, Travelgate, etc., but because this great Democratic hero betrayed other Democrats to save his own skin. He followed the advice of GOP guru Dick Morris to create the policy of "triangulation" (Wikipedia that one), which gave up Democratic gains in favor of GOP policy proposals and cut the legs out from other Democrats.

Now you want his wife to do the same. When will you people get it:

A CLINTON TALKING = A CLINTON LYING.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

There are those of us who believe HRC would make the better president in 2009. I'm on record as being one of them. There are those who believe that BHO would.

Fine.

But can we ALL stop the slurs and vindictive taunts of our respective candidates and each other?

I don't think that either HRC or BHO are in this rcce purely for egotistical selfish ambition. I believe they BOTH want a better America. Each happens to think that he/ she is better positioned to deliver it.

On the other side sits the GOP, who must surely be rubbing its hands in glee at the ammunition we are delivering them for the campaign, regardless of which candidate ends up winning.

I'm alost starting to wish for a brokered convention, as it might then see a dark horse emerge from the convention floor.

Al Gore anyone? At least he wont have 8 months of slurs from within his OWN party for the GOP operatives to use in the election itself.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 14, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Michelle Obama. I won't vote for any other Democrat but Barrack either.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank You rekha.varma2 for sharing your passion for Hillary's campaign. Hillary has been a positive change agent for 35 years. She finds solutions rather than just making promises. And she will be a wonderful president. I especially appreciated the links you provided to Hillary's speeches on human rights issues--which I had heard about but not read.

GO HILLARY!! And come on Barak, you can debate for the good of Wisconsin voters.

JamesDC--a Hill fan

Posted by: JamesDC | February 14, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

rippermccord. You prove my point perfect.y.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Clinton finally has a win 9 days late and after she says Caucuses do not matter.

So when it comes to immigration where does she really stand.

The Next Scapegoat

There was a time of slavery
There was a time women could not vote
There was a time of segregation
There are ongoing changes to anti discrimination laws to protect a person's rights.

Who is left?

The attacking of gay and lesbian individuals as the downfall for families, society, bad behavior, etc. has been such a focus it has accelerated the passing of equal rights for said individuals. While these protections are not universal in nature, it is becoming more and more difficult to be discriminatory to individuals due to sexuality.

The increase in attacks on illegal immigrants has been the most recent scapegoat. It will be harder to stop this area of scapegoating since many of the individuals with the label want to stay hidden. The illegal immigrants have become the perfect tool to use to attack the problems of our society instead of attacking the real causes. It allows for lots of money to be spent, visual stimulus of actions taken and there is always one example of a problem illegal immigrant to show how dangerous the individuals are.

Organizations who serve the populations of immigrants both illegal and legal need to create public service campaigns to better educate US voters and elected officials to the truths.

To let the current message go unchallenged does not serve anyone justice or benefit anyone but those who wish to convey hate and divert us from the real issues.

Clinton certainly has not been forthcoming.

Posted by: robertguinto | February 14, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary returns to the nasty tones of her attack ads and Bill just plain makes things up and revises history, it just reminds everyone of what we lived through and what we don't care to relive.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear Rekha Varma,

It's nice to know that our British friends support the cause of dynasty in my country.

Cheers!

Posted by: fox_qajgev | February 14, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama's quote about supporting Hillary as the nominee was cut off to be used by those who want to stir the pot... be informed, look it up.

The policies of Hillary and Obama are very similar. Not much to debate. The three biggest things that stand out for me are her vote for the war...purely a political move, and the trashy behavior around making race an issue for Obama; her campaign did not expect to be going past Super Tuesday. She did expect to have it in the bag. How ready is she "On Day One", when she mismanaged her campaign to the point that they ran out of cash. I am glad that she now feels our pain...but if she has 5 million in ready cash to throw at the election...she really does not feel our pain. She doesn't stay up at night figuring out how she will pay her bills, and I would venture a guess that her and Bill did not have to take out PLUS loans at 8.5% to send Chelsea to college.

Posted by: amstaur | February 14, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

ps I think Hillary supporters are just as nasty, if not nastier than Obama supporters. So, please do not be self-righteous about that. I am going to ignore the rantings about race -also, from both sides, but mostly Hillary's.

Posted by: Kai_bleu | February 14, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

The reason is the incredibly immoral, unethical, and mean spirited behavior of the Clinton's and their supporters. This campaign has given many Democrats an inkling of why the opposition reacted so strongly to them during Bill's tenure.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Thinker said:
"Finally, no one can talk about race in the Democratic party with out the Obamas accusing you of racism."
----------------------------------------------------
Hey Thinker:
Think again. I won't accuse you of racism, just the simplistic generalities that so many of you Hillary supporters often engage in.

Hillary STARTS with a 47% negative rating. She's had years to correct that, and still, that's the best she can get even now. When the GOP dogs are set loose, you can bet Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica, Norman Hsu, Lincoln bedroom rentals, 1st WTC bombing and more will come up.

What does Obama have going for him? Visit www.barackobama.com and find out, if you dare. In the meantime, keep your generalities to yourself. This is one white guy out of millions who adores voting for strong, honest Democrats, both women (my own Sen. McCaskill, for instance) and men, like Obama.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

NM is old news. She just lost 8 straight, and, as noted, she only picked up one lonely delegate from NM. Thank you NM, for the half of you that saw an ethical, inspirational, and brilliant candidate in Obama and did not shy away from change!

I will be impressed if HRC can blow Obama out the water the way he blows her out of the water with 20-30 point differences. Oh, and, incidentally, that's about the only way she won't lose the nomination too.

May the best candidate win!

Posted by: Kai_bleu | February 14, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters, what is wrong with most of you? Why do you attack your fellow Democrats so vulgarly? As usual, the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the Republicans will win in November, probably, if this keeps up, because Democrats can't hold together, and are not good company, really, when one reads blogs by Obama supporters.

Posted by: Gail1 | February 14, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Many Democrats will never forgive Bill Clinton for abandoning them during his tenure.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

They Clinton's won by selling the rest of the Democratic party down the river. There are reasons more aren't supporting the Clintons that have NOTHING to do with Obama.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

How ironic that if she had won NM by a wider margin, the news would have come out on February 6th, the media would have paid it little attention since it had all the other Super Tuesday contests to report on, and Hillary would not be receiving this boost of positive news right now.

It's scary big of a role media-spin plays in choosing the next leader of our country.

Posted by: alushuk | February 14, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

...Also, the caucus format disenfranchises too many people (disabled, shy,non-English speakers, poor who can't take time off)


Just wondering if shy people are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Posted by: anonthistime | February 14, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Another great opinion I have recently read. It is excellent and TRUE:

McCain will be brutal for Obama. I don't see how he could win.

McCain starts off with Ohio and Florida (Hillary won Florida by a wide margin, and will win Ohio in the primary) - Obama has virtually no support in either of these states.

This is an electoral college race. And I can't see Obama ever taking Ohio or Florida. And I think McCain will crush him in other purple states as well.

All this does not even take into account how the GOP/Media attacks will affect Obama's positives. I think he might have higher negatives than Clinton a the end of the debate.

Finally, no one can talk about race in the Democratic party with out the Obamas accusing you of racism. But will the GOP really care what liberals think about racism? And will the media give the GOP a free pass to do this? McCain will not do it directly, but there will be plenty of 527's out there doing all the dirty work.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Been to D.C. many times in the last 36 years and have never read nor seen so many racist rants. Is the WPO the ONLY place to rant about the next black hopeful? Puh...leez....... Obama has only made suggestions about what he wants to do....but most people forget that he NEEDS co-operation of MANY OTHER PEOPLE to accomplish any of his hope filled suggestions. Will he be next years brunt of the joke?

Posted by: tellallmary | February 14, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

This is beautiful. The distortions and lies return. I imagine the intent is NOT to make this as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but it certainly seems that way.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if Bill Clinton was faithful to his wife for an entire year. IMAGINE!

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

yes, Obama is good. Obama is great!

Black Power!

Posted by: samuel19406 | February 14, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse


This is a great item I read recently. It is excellent and TRUE:

One of the best lines Clinton has used against Obama was her retort to his suggestion during a debate that he was not as polarizing as her. She said that Obama was naive to think that he would have high positives after the right wing attack machine was done with him in the general election. The Clinton's are the only Democrats to successfully defeat the GOP attacks.

Obama has never had a tough race against the the GOP. Ever. His state senate races were in the heavily democratic south side of Chicago. His US Senate race was against Keyes, the weakest GOP candidate ever in Illinois.

We all will be in for a big disappointment if he gets our nomination. The right wing will use everything against him. His lack of experience will make a perfect foil for the right wing to paint him how they wish. They will not have any problems using dirty attacks against him. And the media that is criticizing Clinton now, will aid the GOP in their attacks. I did not hear the media crying about Bush senior's Willy Horton attack ads. Obama will be left alone, and undefined at the time the GOP starts its attacks. The Clinton's are the only Democrats since LBJ to survive these attacks. They are the only Democrats to win two terms in the last 64 years.

Hillary is our only chance of taking the White House this year. We may never get this chance again. Without the Clintons, the Democratic party would be virtually dead by now. Why risk it?

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are such whiners. Just like their candidate and his wife who are as petulant as they come. Imagine if Bill Clinton said he wouldn't vote for Obama if he won. The press would have gone ballistic. But when Michelle says she'll have to think about voting for Hillary, no one pays attention. Remember, Real Men like and vote for Strong Women. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Jemma1 | February 14, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree with everything the UK student has said about Hillary Clinton. She is a wonderful human being, who in 1995 received an Honorary Doctorate from Mount Saint Vincent University in Canada, in recognition of her tireless work to better the lives of women and children.

I am not eligible to vote in the U.S. election, as I am Canadian. I do,however, believe that Hillary deserves a lot of credit for being able to withstand the increasingly mean-spirited attacks coming her way in her own country's media. She's a fine woman who would easily be elected as president or prime minister had she
lived in another country.

The intensity of the slurs against Hillary function to scare away all women who might consider running for high political office.
Hillary, remain strong and don't let them break your spirit!


Posted by: platynm | February 14, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

If they would only turn Bill loose again. His integrity and fidelity would certainly boost her numbers.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I've been watching how Sen. Clinton keeps returning viewers to her regularly scheduled attack program, now in progress. Now, I'm just one guy, but it seems her show isn't about all that much except switching Stetsons with Sen. Obama and claiming she's the one who rode into town wearing the white hat. Maybe it's just a preview of her political ambitions. Or a rerun of the 1990s.

It stars Hillary as the school marm with a checkered past. Howard Wolfson, Hillary's political communications operative, stars as her talking Rottweiler.

To hear the Clinton cast tell it, Obama is smug and complacent about the voters in Texas and Ohio. That's the storyline the Clinton characters are pushing in Wisconsin, too, where her newest ad whines that Obama won't give her an extra chance to smear him live and in color.

In Texas, Hillary and Wolfson are making daily rewrites on the script, trying out new one-liners on the folks they regard as mere urban cowpokes. But their plot is the same: To persuade the Democrats in upcoming primary states that Obama doesn't value their votes and is too high-falutin' to care about their concerns.

Now, talk about creative writing. Hillary and friends didn't base their little program on a true story. Nope. They went out of their way to base it on a half-true story.

The truth is, an Obama campaign staffer worked the numbers and answered a reporter's question about what the math reveals: that even if Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, she will have a hard time winning the nomination outright -- in other words, fair and square without twisting the arms of superdelegates or seating delegates she agreed to give up (until she won Michigan against "Uncommitted").

To take that and turn it into the idea that Obama doesn't care about Texans and Ohioans is just hack writing. The truth is, Obama never said anything like the race is already over (as Clinton and her people are saying he did). He knows what an aggressive fighter she is. And he's not about to give up ANY voter without a fight.

Obama just knows that since people in Texas and Ohio are the real stars, they'll probably want to approve the script before Hillary puts words in their mouths, too.

Posted by: rippermccord | February 14, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I love seeing these tactics from the Clinton campaign. They might just manage to hand TX and OH to Obama wrapped in a bow.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Average Jane. Let me spell out what people are trying to say about Obama. He is a p-h-o-n-y.

Obama is a panderer. He will say and do anything to get elected.

Obama took the "Change" and "Hope" in his speech directly from Bill Clinton's stump speeches from years ago - the past - that Obama keeps saying we need to get away from.

Obama took the title of his book "Audacity of Hope," from Rev. Wright (of the anti-israel, radical church, The Trinity,)
for the title of his (Obama's book.)

Obama took his chant, "Yes, we can," from the migrant farm workers who fought to be the United Farm Workers forty years ago when Obama was five years old or so.

Obama criticizes the past. He pits the past against the future, but Obama is very adept at reaching into the past for what he wants to portray as his philosophy, including speaking like MLK and adopting MLK's words.

Obama is as I said, a real snake oil salesman "cult-like" kind of p-h-o-n-y.

I don't think it will work for him - people are starting to catch on - even some in the media. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 14, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

"Quackling," waddling alien invader duckpersons shrieking "!Andando, Memin Pinguin, ja ja ja ja ja ja...!" were spawned that night from Area 51 and overwhelmed the vote tabulators, causing Jeff Goldblum to binge on Manischewitz, which caused BO loyalists downstream to flee the polls crying "!Arroyo jinchio!"
Carville in a sombrero? Where's Ruben Blades when you need him?

Posted by: sawargos | February 14, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

This is beautiful. Hillary is engaging in the very same tactics that send people running from her campaign. You couldn't ask for a better opponent. It's comforting to know the majority of American people no longer embrace that kind of politics.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 14, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

cjones21, Thanks for the information on the hipocracy of Obama. He is against special interests but is willing to to buy superdelegates. The last time I saw such sloganering and hiprcracy was in the 2000 elections. And we all know where we are because of that. Vote for someone whose record you know not for one who promises you the world. The "compassionate conservative" has been everything but compassionate. The "audacity of hope" is probably going to be about anything but hope for the common man. America wake up please stop dreaming.

Posted by: shrestbin | February 14, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been the untimate "divide and conquer" candidate since Day One.

Obama played the "I got more in campaign donations immediately, in Iowa, when people didn't even know he existed or how to pronouce his name, and the media swooned.

Obama claimed to have gotten sixty million dollars in contributions. When called on how many contributors there really were, Obama had to admit that a lot of the money and number of contributors was from purchases not contributions.

At the time, I asked "Just who did purchase all those bumper stickers." (That was before I found out about Obama's 17 year relationship with the "influence peddling," corruption expert, Antoin Rezko, who is from Syria and receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east."

That was also before I knew that Obama was closely affiliated with the anti-Israel Trinity Church. The Obama's were married in that church. Obama took the title for his book, "Audacity of Hope," from one of that church's Reverend Wright's sermons.

Obama has tried to "fix" this election in every way he can. He brought out the race card "big time," and even hit Bill Clinton over the head with it.

Obama's surrogates, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Rep. Clyburne, who were thinking of every way possible to get their candidate, Obama, to win, claimed that Hillary and Bill Clinton played the race card, which wasn't at all true, and they advised Clinton, for the good of the Democratic Party, to be muzzled and to "chill out."

That was pretty shrewd of them - it won SC for them, but by being so shrewd, it divided the country and fractured the Democratic Party in ways that, quite frankly, Bill and Hillary Clinton, did not.

Now, Obama, although he placed national ads that played in Florida, which he knew would happen ahead of the election, plus Obama placed radio ads in Florida, which he calls playing by the rules and it wasn't campaigning, whereas Hillary really did not campaign there, Obama thinks that the votes in Florida and Michigan shouldn't count, because they agreed not to campaign in those states, but Obama wants to change the rules to suit himself about the super delegates. (Is this what Obama wants to "change," - the election so he can win by hook or by crook?

The media already has allowed Obama to "fix" what is reported and what is not reported. Obama sends memos out several times a day telling the media what to say about things.

Obama is already using his sales pitch to get the super delegates to vote for him.

The election is only half over - why should the super delegates listen to Obama?

The super delegates should be very leary about jumping onto Obama's frenzied train. Obama is yet to be vetted, and Obama's friendships and relationships and alliances in Chicago make it very possible that Obama would be a threat to our national security.

I, personally, don't want Obama, Rezko, and the anti-Israel church's Reverend Wright to have access to our government's national intelligence and information and to our nuclear weapons.

The press gave us George Bush, and they should not help someone that is anti-Israel and who has such a corrupt friend as Tony Rezko, in the White House.

Sometimes I think George Bush has been such a bad president that many of the people in our country are trying a "cult-like" personality, Obama, as Bob Dole called Obama. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 14, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Here is the Barbara Bush quote:

"What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) - this is working very well for them." -Former First Lady Barbara Bush, on the hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 5, 2005

Does that sound like there is any chance a state that voted for 2 Bush's 3 times is going to vote for Obama?

Posted by: cjones210 | February 14, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

It's difficult to come to terms with the maniacal justifications for Hillary, and her immense honesty and ability to lead. What a strange idea, to step back to the 90's... so we can once again suffer from years of Clinton backlash among the masses. If Hillary wins, let us all hasten the revolution.

Posted by: twofeathers50 | February 14, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

How quickly will the Clinton "marriage" end after Obama wins the nomination? I'm guessing it's within two years... anybody want to take a bet on that?

Posted by: fred100012003 | February 14, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

If anyone thinks Texas will vote for a black president you should remember what First Lady Barbara Bush said about the black people that ended up in Texas after Katrina.

Something like this: Of course they like it here, it is better than where they came from.

Posted by: cjones210 | February 14, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey Obama supporters, ever wonder where a big chunk of your donations are going when you give your money to the candidate of "change"? Follow the line at the bottom.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005,(but he only decided to run in 2006?) the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000. Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists, he just tries harder than Hillary to buy the election with his campaign donations.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 (72% less than Obama spent) to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

Posted by: cjones210 | February 14, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone imagine, especially you men out there, what it was like for Bill to enjoy the unspeakable pleasure of young intern Monica, who loved him, and gave all the young tenderness that she had to give to him, and then find out that not only had the Pentagon witch Tripp blew his game, she had persuaded Monica to keep the stained dress. The Stained Dress!! Can anyone imagine what a downer that must have been for old Bill (married with child). Surely if there is a God, he had abandoned Slick Willy, the first "Black President".

Posted by: Majacrusn | February 14, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary could work circles around any cadidate. I want a President who accomplishes things, not one who makes us feel good. Obama's message of hope & bipartisanship is naive and seductive. I want a realist to lead us. yanks go

Posted by: yanksgo | February 14, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Let's Give Hillary the credit due. She WON New Mexico. Senator Obama has previously said that the number of wins are most important, even though he was behind in delegates at the time and trying to make it seem better than it was. He is playing a great political game and we can only hope that Americans realize it before it is too late. (Btw, I think that he is a great orator, speaker and presenter ... but these qualities do not make a great president!)

Posted by: STaylor24 | February 14, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

GOD BLESS AMERICA. AND ELECT THIS PHENOMINAL AND BRILLIANT WOMAN. She is a gift.


Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 07:14 PM

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Who wouldn't be on the national stage without her husband. Yeah that's exceptional.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 14, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Momentum in tiny caucuses does not decide an election early. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT COMPLETED OUR SENTENCE. But we will - and it will end with the words Hillary Clinton, Madame President.
Mr. Obama is WAY ahead of himself. In ego the size of NY and CA -- but he didn't win those states. He is a totally cocky man.
He and his "handlers" say he's won already. Well, take a clue from that. The voice of the People has not spoken -- but he assumes his is the over riding voice. See any similarities to his love of speeches without conversations? The answer is yes, you do. He has been riding a wave of charm - and he has been flattering anyone who will listen. But he has no substance.
Obama makes speeches -- Hillary will make REAL CHANGE happen for average (Dunkin Donut) Americans. And that is what the Democratic (non-latte) Party is about!!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA. AND ELECT THIS PHENOMENAL AND BRILLIANT WOMAN. She is a gift.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD. You can bet the Rovian Republicans are taping his speeches. The ones where he vocally inflects inner city drawl in South Carolina, or perfect English at Dartmouth College. He's a consummate politician. Did I spell that right? consummate? He's a master orator. That does not equate to a capable qualified leader of the free world.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 07:52 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HaHaHaHa....that is the funniest NON- Thinking thing I have ever read. My own husband comes from the South side of Chicago and spent 20 years in the service.
When we first took the kids to visit his home town relatives they couldn't believe he was their dad. He imediately talked with the slang he grew up with. And he still does it 22 years later, so what point are you trying to make with such an assinine observation?

Posted by: AverageJane | February 14, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

On the night of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide, Williams and counsel Bernie Nussbaum combed Foster's office for personal papers, and she was later criticized for allegedly removing a sheaf of documents that were locked away before eventually turning them over to attorneys.

Posted by: Phil5 | February 14, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

On the night of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide, Williams and counsel Bernie Nussbaum combed Foster's office for personal papers, and she was later criticized for allegedly removing a sheaf of documents that were locked away before eventually turning them over to attorneys.

Posted by: Phil5 | February 14, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

On the night of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide, Maggie Williams and counsel Bernie Nussbaum combed Foster's office for personal papers, and she was later criticized for allegedly removing a sheaf of documents that were locked away before eventually turning them over to attorneys.

Posted by: Phil5 | February 14, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

ABC Voter - Anybody But Clinton

Posted by: tmm4264 | February 14, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Yay Hillary, congratulations on your 2 delegate lead in New Mexico. I'm sure it will add much weight to your campaign spin.

Keep crowing soon your feathers will all be plucked.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD. You can bet the Rovian Republicans are taping his speeches. The ones where he vocally inflects inner city drawl in South Carolina, or perfect English at Dartmouth College. He's a consummate politician. Did I spell that right? consummate? He's a master orator. That does not equate to a capable qualified leader of the free world.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

What a spin job this article is. This is not a "boost [to HRC}, who has lost eight contests in a row to Sen. Barack Obama since their Super Tuesday split decision." This WAS a Super Tuesday contest, she was projected the winner soon after Feb. 5th, and the delegate counts were already factored in by all major news outlets.

This is manufactured news by the HRC camp, pure and simple.

Posted by: mdore1 | February 14, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

HoaLu. You sound ridiculous. Over and over.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Jake D. No - he said with lots of ego and rather snidely. I record all of this on my DVD so I can see what he's said. I've been listening to him for a long time. Open mined at the start - but at this point in the game - I haven't heard a thing of importance or specifics. This world at this time in this country need specifics in capital letters - this is not a parade or a reasonable time. This is a time for totally qualified leadership. We are not in a good situation. Mr. Obama is stunned by his performance. I am as well. But that isn't the same as IMPRESSED or, certainly, inspired. I'm not.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton spent the day with NM Gov. Richardson watching the Super Bowl, but he hasn't come out for Hillary, isn't that curious?

And Clinton appointed him to 2 cabinet level posts while he was in office.

Posted by: artex
===
Maybe he's waiting to endorse Hillary right before the Texas primary so it can major media attention.

Posted by: badger3 | February 14, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama - even if he ever could survive a Republican general election with a McCain/Romney or McCain/Condaleezza ticket -- he'd be a four year failure. His little white haired troll friends cozying up to him will be all over the Rovian ads. Mr. Obama with the super liberals.
Hillary did not get their endorsement because she doesn't play with the boys in the boys club. Mr. Obama is counting on them.... obviously. He seems to never get off his float. Let's have a real Q&A debate. He's scaaaaared. Don't want to be held to something I've said. Oooo. Let me steal Hillary's lines, they seem to be working well for her. I can make a good speech - but not a good plan. Oh, I wonder if the leaders of the world will follow my float the way these idealistic young folk have. Maybe if I put on my MLK channelling act - they'll follow me to the ends of the Earth (that's dying) and we will all live happily in peace, love and... gad. I think we're time traveling or tripping out on the 60s. We need to get into the time machine and soar our way back to reality - where we are. Which is in deep doggie doo and needs a bit of adult leadership.

Sorry he didn't wait another eight years. He may have had the experience it takes. But right now - he is just a guy that loves to listen to himself. He's amazed at the parade behind him. I hope he's also honest enough to admit he hasn't got what it takes yet. And that he'll be beholden to so many for so much for so long. Talk about special interests.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Thinker:

Much better. Thank you for the correction.

By the way, were you so indignant towards HRC when she was acting like the presumptive nominee back in December and January?

Just curious.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else think there will be rioting if Obama loses?

Posted by: JakeD | February 14, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Thinker:

I believe Obama is saying that MCCAIN thinks Obama is already the nominee -- that's different from Obama saying "I think I am already the nominee" -- see the difference?

Posted by: JakeD | February 14, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

PHENOMENAL -- you know, no matter how you spell it, it's what it is.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama's words: "John McCain started attacking me on economic policy, which I thought was flattering. It's clear that he knows who his opponent is gonna be." Well, I guess Mr. Obama has decided he has won -he is not waiting for the voice of We The People... so we don't have to have to hear the voice of the people in Michigan, Hawaii, Ohio, Texas, others. WOW! And you thought Bill Clinton had an ego. At least he had a record of achievements as a basis for his. He was a great president.

Remember NH? Momentum shifts - and, obviously, creates a large ego. It doesn't speak for the people of Michigan or Ohio or Hawaii.

MICHIGAN: Let's show Mr. Obama what real change is! And that we have a voice and that this election is NOT over - even if he thinks he's already the nominee.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

These Clinton supporters are ridiculous. Of course the Obamas will support Hillary Clinton... if she doesn't cheat her way to the nomination with superdelegates!

Posted by: Nissl | February 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Thinker, 8 more years of disgrace and embarrassment won't make the country a better place.

We deserve a class act for once.

Obama is undeniably a better leader. Look how people respond to him. Most of us are sick of her and Bill and she would lose to McCain for the same reasons she is losing to Obama - people don't like her. It is personal.

Posted by: charlesbozonier | February 14, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Grats on winning Clinton. That's one less superdelegate you'll need to cheat your way to the nomination.

Posted by: Nissl | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I must admit Hillary is getting sillier and siller everyday.

Posted by: HoaLu | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I must admit Hillary is getting sillier and siller everyday.

Posted by: HoaLu | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I must admit Hillary is getting sillier and siller everyday.

Posted by: HoaLu | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I must admit Hillary is getting sillier and siller everyday.

Posted by: HoaLu | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I must admit Hillary is getting sillier and siller everyday.

Posted by: HoaLu | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Thinker:

The best part is how you can't spell "phenomenal", but you do know the correct corporate misspelling of "Dunkin' Donuts".

Awesome.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Thinker:

Do you have a link to Obama and/or his handlers saying "he's won already"?

Posted by: JakeD | February 14, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse


Momentum in tiny caucuses does not decide an election early. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT COMPLETED OUR SENTENCE. But we will - and it will end with the words Hillary Clinton, Madame President.

Mr. Obama is WAY ahead of himself. In ego the size of NY and CA -- but he didn't win those states. He is a totally cocky man.

He and his "handlers" say he's won already. Well, take a clue from that. The voice of the People has not spoken -- but he assumes his is the over riding voice. See any similarities to his love of speeches without conversations? The answer is yes, you do. He has been riding a wave of charm - and he has been flattering anyone who will listen. But he has no substance.

Obama makes speeches -- Hillary will make REAL CHANGE happen for average (Dunkin Donut) Americans. And that is what the Democratic (non-latte) Party is about!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA. AND ELECT THIS PHENOMINAL AND BRILLIANT WOMAN. She is a gift.

Posted by: Thinker | February 14, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary now regrets not paying attention in speech class! Today, Hillary had to look down and read directly off the page, the words of her campaign's "new" message - a message that disparages Obama's inspirational speeches and message of hope. What a joke! At least it's only Thurdsay; by the weekend she should have her message memorized.
Obama's greatest accomplishment is bringing hope back to politics, bringing back so many independents and Republicans to the Democratic primaries and demonstrating that a Democratic candidate can actually appeal to people outside of the narrow, partisan and polarized band of the Democratic Party. That's a remarkable achievement.
It is about time that somebody let's the Clintons know that the Democratic Party is bigger than they are, has been around longer than them and will once again be a vital potent force in American politics once they finally realize that they have worn out their welcome and leave the stage. And I am glad that it is Obama.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 14, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

celested9: Do you have any sources to back up those claims, or is the just a case of "and this one time... at band camp..."?

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 14, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary now regrets not paying attention in speech class! Today, Hillary had to look down and read directly off the page, the words of her campaign's "new" message - a message that disparages Obama's inspirational speeches and message of hope. What a joke! At least it's only Thurdsay; by the weekend she should have her message memorized.
Obama's greatest accomplishment is bringing hope back to politics, bringing back so many independents and Republicans to the Democratic primaries and demonstrating that a Democratic candidate can actually appeal to people outside of the narrow, partisan and polarized band of the Democratic Party. That's a remarkable achievement.
It is about time that somebody let's the Clintons know that the Democratic Party is bigger than they are, has been around longer than them and will once again be a vital potent force in American politics once they finally realize that they have worn out their welcome and leave the stage. And I am glad that it is Obama.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | February 14, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

lndlouis:

I think you probably know the answer, but Michelle Obama will NOT support the democratic nominee if it is not her husband (i.e. Hillary Clinton). Do you think there will be rioting if Obama loses?

Posted by:

Posted by: JakeD | February 14, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't like the caucus's either. I have heard from the media some pretty nasty things going on. At one, a lady trying to have her say was SHOUTED DOWN by Obama supporters and ended up sobbing. That's called intimidation not democracy. At another, a caucus goer reported that Obama supporters did something they called OBAMA bingo where his supporters were "kept together" by playing for prizes, not good.

Also, the caucus format disenfranchises too many people (disabled, shy,non-English speakers, poor who can't take time off) and really should be discontinued. This format is just not able to handle the amount of people that primaries can. See the issues reported when the caucuses were flood with voters. Disaster!

Posted by: celested9 | February 14, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

rekha.varma2: save your fingers posting your links all over the web. Now that Dems have a viable alternative, their loathing of Hillary Clinton is free to be released. She just went down by landslides (30+pt defeats) in states from sea to shining sea. NM doesn't count -- that was a super Super Tues state before voters knew that Obama could his own against Clinton. You just watch. She's going down hard -- she stands for the DC establishment and 16 yrs of spin that people want to hit the 'delete' button on.

Posted by: e2holmes | February 14, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I invite you, Rekha Varma, to butt out.

Posted by: shahpesareh | February 14, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

do we really need another Harvard Graduate on the job trained president

Posted by: lndlouis | February 14, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Hillary

I'll vote for Barak only if I have to

Will Michelle Obama vote democrat or republican

Who did the Obama's vote for when Clinton was running, did they vote republican? or did they support there party

and again, will Michelle Obama support the democratic nominee if it is not her husband


Posted by: lndlouis | February 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Go Obama--give me a break! The only quote, unquote CHANGE that Obama will bring is a change from bad to worse! Why would anyone want to turn around and elect Obama with limited experience after electing Bush with limited experience? That does not seem like much of a change to me, unless you count one is Republican and one is Democrat. You may as well shoot yourself in the foot. This country needs stability and someone who can deal with foreign dignitaries. Everyone will not buy into Obamas smooth talk. You gotta walk the walk, and he can't. I have never seen Obama in a picture with foreign dignitaries. With Hillary, we've got Bill. All the countries loved Bill--even this one. I am a black American and this is one black vote for Hillary!

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | February 14, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

¡Nosotros le adoramos Hillary!

¡Hillary es el uno!

Posted by: Hillary08 | February 14, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton spent the day with NM Gov. Richardson watching the Super Bowl, but he hasn't come out for Hillary, isn't that curious?

And Clinton appointed him to 2 cabinet level posts while he was in office.

Posted by: artexc | February 14, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Three points for Hillary Clinton and her supporters:
NAFTA, WHITE HOUSE RECORDS, and TAX RETURNS.
..'nuff said.

Posted by: Sis_O | February 14, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Only 1000 votes in a messy election. We were sent to one place and then another. Not a big difference by any means.

Go Obama!!!

Posted by: alarico | February 14, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Clinton got 14 delegates to Obama's 12. This is basically even. The difference was less than 1% when you look at the counts: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/
To do this in NM suggests that Obama did ok with the Latino demographic -- better than in CA where the Latino voters split 2 to 1 for Clinton. This bodes well for Obama in TX. He is a stronger position now with the addition of his momentum, additional name recognition and voters knowing that he can win over Clinton. He has good prospects for winning TX. Even if Clinton takes TX it shouldn't be with a landslide, which is what she needs to take the lead in pledged delegates.

It comes down to Wisconsin -- if he takes WI with a landslide then it shows Clinton is not able to slow his momentum. If she holds him to a 10pt win, then it means she slowed him down and there's still hope for her.

Personally, I hope WI Dems put the nail in her presidential coffin. Go WI!

Posted by: e2holmes | February 14, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Reckha.varma2, you have no slightest idea what Hillary's hysteria, and paranoia, her feeling of sexual and intellectual inferiority and other terrible qualities of her personality had really done to the world. Besides, you were a child, living in UK, back in Clinon's time, and you have no idea that her speeches and her actions had really nothing in common. You have no slightest idea how terribly destructive inspired by her actions had been. Why can't you and other foreigners like you mind business of your own countries, instead of teaching American citizens how and whom they should vote for, ah?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 14, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Of course Hillary won New Mexico.

New Mexico has the most government workers per capita of any state in America by far. Senator Clinton is the ultimate bureaucrat.

She believes we need to continue the old LBJ policies of warehousing the poor so that they are easy to round up on election day to vote "D" instead of focusing on a vibrant economy and help for the poor to educate themselves out of poverty and into private sector jobs.

Hillary is the past. Obama and McCain are the future. Either would be preferable to Washington insider Hillary.

Posted by: msmithnv | February 14, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Good job Hillary.

Oh wait, since I'm an Obama supporter, I should say "we all knew Hillary was going to win it. She was expected to win it. We'll see you in Wisconsin, we're waiting!"

Right?

Posted by: thecrisis | February 14, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton is on shakier ground when attacking Obama for supporting "Dick Cheney's energy bill," and not just because it's a stretch to assign the vice president name _ red meat to Democrats _ to the legislation."

"The 2005 act that she describes as packed with billions of dollars in oil industry breaks actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service."

"The nonpartisan analysis found $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bulk of tax breaks went to other sources of energy, including alternative fuels favored by both Clinton and Obama."

All of this is the perfect example of how Hillary and Bill Clinton work is misrepresenting a comment, a vote, or a stand on the issues by their opponent. It is the same soory trick that George W Bush has taken out of Karl Roves "dirty tricks" handbook and used successfully against Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry. The philosopht seems to be - if you can't beat your opponent fair and square by telling the truth - lie a little.

It's really quite simple. Just point out that your opponent voted for or against some legislative Bill, which is the little bit of truth that makes the lie believable and makes the trick work so well. But yoy attach some villainous name (like Bush or Cheney) to the Bill and then you distortwhat the overall peurpose or outcome of the legislation was (as Hillary is doing in this case) or perhaps you fail to mention some horrible amendment or earmark that was attached to the bill which was the real reason for your opponents vote.

It's a rotten trick but it tends to work very well with voters who take what one candidate (like Clinton or Bush) says about their opponent at face value out of blind faith, laziness (won't research issues to find the truth), or because it supports their candidate so they are willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that it is spreading false information.

You can look for a lot of this type of disinformation from both Hillary and Bill Clinton in the next 3 weeks as they pull out all the stops in an effort to derail Senator Obama before the voting in Texas and Ohio. This is precisely why the Clinton administration is targeting specific demographic groups that are less likely to be fully informed about the issues and are more suceptible to their campaign based on lies.

Posted by: diksagev | February 14, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

VERY GOOD NEWS!

It does never, ever cross my mind at all that Hillary will lose this presidential election though I know she may face some great challenge from both her own party and republic party. She is just so experienced, intelligent and tough with a great political passion and vision. She is a great fighter and a super leader that our America desperately needs right now. Her idea and her programs are real and practical. She is a true deal that we need. I firmly believe that Hillary will win TX, OH, PA and some of the rest states where people have not voted yet though it will be a tough battle.

GO HILLARY!!!


Posted by: NoWorry | February 14, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has regretfully declined her victory in NM. After all caucuses don't matter. Right?

Posted by: dnbraggs | February 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Read our post

"Hillbert Clintphrey (Is this 1968?) at

http://highwayscribery.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html#3194292333529128090

Posted by: highwayscribery1 | February 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

2 fellow Hillary supporters & undecided voters,

I'm a UK uni student who supports Hillary Clinton & I'm asking you to join me in a online virtual movement that is similar to the Ron Paul internet movement, which is not about trashing other candidates or imposing voters to support Hillary. This movement is about counteracting the biased US press that has made no sincere effort to research & inform Americans of Hillary's independent international work as 1st lady, & has there4 both allowed & in fact encouraged her independent work to be belittled & denied. As 1st lady, Hillary worked with the international community on causes such as: human right's, advancing women's economic, political & social position, & investing in children's future, all of which overlapped with her lifetime commitment to advocating & working for quality affordable healthcare & education for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, age, disability or income.

I invite all Americans to explore the former Clinton- Gore administration website that was once fully functional in the 90's, on the links I have provided below, to allow you to read all her inspirational & purposeful speeches made around the world on these causes, whether in N.Ireland, Africa, Russia, India, China, Pakistan etc. to give you an insight into her experience in having already demonstrated her ability to work with the international community, leaders & institutions (like the UN), on universal causes. I particularly want to ask you to look up her speeches made to the community in N.Ireland in the "women as citizens" section as it gives you an insight into her experience in being involved in helping the community work to overcome political & religious differences & conflict cause by both sides seeking revenge for loved ones lost in conflict, to achieve de facto peace in the community via a pragmatic approach involving encouraging the community to unite over working together on universal issues discussed above & on expressing shared concerns of the safety of their families (look up her leading role in the Vital Voices Initiative). The underlying causes of the conflict in N.Ireland are the same as the underlying causes of the civil war in Iraq (religious differences, political differences, & revenge for loss of loved ones during), there4 her experience in being personally involved in successfully contributing to helping a divided community achieve de facto peace will prove invaluable in advising the Iraqi government in how to help resolve civil war in the long term once US troops withdraw. I 'm asking for Americans to please ask Hillary if she will reclaim the approach she & others successfuly demonstrated in N.Ireland, in Iraq .

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/iinternational.html

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/issues.html

Be part of this virtual movement, in informing as many Americans as possible to explore these website links I've provided that allows you to read all her speeches made aroundthe world as 1st lady that the US media has concealed from you. E-mail as many people as possible, post the links repeatedly on youtube, & post them on as many blogs as possible (NY Times, CNN, Huffington Post, Washington Post, CNN Political Ticker, blogs etc.) to reach a national audience within a short space of time, to allow them to make an fair informed assessment of her candidacy. Every individual American that I have e-mailed so far via youtube starting just yesterday, has appreciated my effort in directing them to evidence of an invaluable primary resource that gives insight into all the causes she worked for at the national & international level that the US media has failed to inform them on, & have promised to pass this information on to their fellow Americans as they believed having access to this information gave credibility to her candidacy that the US media has tried to discredit.

Enjoy reading her inspirational, purposeful & often moving speeches, & become part of this proactive online virtual grass roots movement to counteract the media bias by sharing the evidence of her experience to the national audience.

Posted by: rekha.varma2 | February 14, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company