Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War

By Alec MacGillis
TOLEDO -- So this is what being a front-runner deep in primary season looks like: taking flak on three sides.

Sen. Barack Obama found himself today facing insinuations from Republicans that he lacks patriotism, charges from Hillary Clinton that he is a hypocrite on campaign ethics, and put-downs from Ralph Nader, who in announcing his third-party candidacy this morning dismissed Obama as well-intentioned but in hock to the corporate agenda.

So far, at least, Obama is showing that he can stand his ground and return fire on all fronts.

At a gypsum manufacturing plant in Lorain, Ohio, today, he was asked about indications that Republicans are preparing a line of attack impugning his patriotism, pulling together several things: a photograph that showed him singing the national anthem without putting his hand over his heart; his decision not to wear an American flag pin on his lapel; his (tenuous) connection with a former Weatherman; and his wife's recent comment about not being proud of America until this campaign.

"The way I will respond to it is with the truth. I owe everything I am to this country. The reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love for this country," he said. "The notion that I am disqualified because at one event I was singing the national anthem but failed to put my hand over my heart -- if that were the case, that must disqualify half the people who've ever gone to a football game."


His wife, he said, had clarified her comments to make clear that what she meant was that this was the first time she was "proud of politics in America, and that's true of a lot of people." As for the pin, he said, "if we want to start getting into those definitions of patriotism," then he would come back with questions for a "a party that presided over a war where the troops that didn't get the body armor they needed" and is "undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary."

"That's a debate I'm more than willing to have," he said. "We'll see what the Americans think is the true definition of patriotism."

Next, he was asked about Nader's comments on "Meet the Press," in which Nader called Obama a "person of substance" but added that "his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself."

Obama's answer was even tougher than one he gave Saturday about Nader. "Ralph Nader's view is, unless it's Ralph Nader, then you're not tough enough on any of these issues," he said. "He thought there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. I think eight years later, people realize Ralph doesn't know what he's talking about."

He added, "Ralph Nader deserved enormous credit for the work he did as consumer advocate." But, he concluded, "His function as perennial presidential candidate is not helping put food on table."

Finally, Obama was asked again about Clinton's accusation that it was unfair to attack her for being part of the Clinton White House that approved NAFTA, when she has more recently made clear her ambivalence about the trade deal. Clinton has lambasted him all weekend for tactics she said were reminiscent of Karl Rove and dared him to "meet me in Ohio" to take up the dispute.

Obama shot back that he was on solid ground in his NAFTA attack, which has the potential to stir a lot of voters in a state where the trade deal is deeply unpopular.

"She's essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years. Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of," he said. "So the notion that she can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient, that doesn't make sense. If she's suggesting she had nothing to do with economic policy in the Clinton White House, then it would not be fair [to attack her on NAFTA], but as you know, that's not the claim that she's making."

By Post Editor  |  February 24, 2008; 7:01 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Accused of Flip-Flopping on Union Aid
Next: Clinton Talks SNL and Press Scrutiny

Comments

You are the greatist!
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-trading-currency-day.html " target="_top">forex trading currency day

Posted by: Ethan pllxz | April 10, 2008 5:15 AM | Report abuse

Can anybody tell Me, why the media, and I mean the whole media, hate Senator Hillary Clinton as much as they do?. Is it because she is a woman, or it because she is Bill Clinton's wife?. Why is the media so nice to Senator Barack Obama, the way I see it, he don't need millions of dollars, for his campaign, MSNBC, CNN, and many others, including Fox, are giving him, so much free coverage, that he could, save all his millions, for the general electionscampaign. If Senator Barack Obama, get the same help from all the media, for the general elections, the way his getting it for the primarie elections, he should save all the money, and put it in the bank, with the media been so kind to him, he will not need, to pay for any advertising.

Posted by: arcadio_1944 | February 27, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Wow. As the Clinton campaign gets desperate, so do her supporters.
mafox1, your points are well numbered but mostly addressing issues that were answered months ago. Both Rezco's money to Obama, and Norman Hsu's money to Clinton were given (by each campaign respectively) to charity.
svreader - you really should just make a "LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!" video and post it on you tube.
and ebubuk2004 - you're really George W, aren't you? I mean, when you combine DANGEROUS and UNPATRIOTIC, it sounds like we're about ready to burn Dixie Chick records again! Oooo, be very afraid. The black muslim man is 'hyp-motizin' them all.

C'mon you guys. McCain is a genuine hero indeed, but really, do you think ANY Republican could beat ANY Democrat this year? McCain is like comfort food...his voice sounds like Regan and Bush combined. But listen to what he's saying...do you want HIM negotiating with Iran? (bomb bomb bomb..hahaha, ain't I funny.) Yeah, John, you're so cute with that.
You all, as Americans, are very lucky that Senator Obama decided to stand up at a time when we need him the most.
He is the only Real Thing out there, and Americans know it now.
So don't blow it for the rest of the world, okay?

Posted by: sheridan1 | February 25, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Bravo Ralph Nader.

If Clinton does not gain the nomination, VOTE NADER. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

CLINTON SUPPORTERS: VOTE NADER

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 25, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

The centerpiece of Obama's campaign is CHANGE. That goes two ways. Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas can also effect CHANGE. These three states are in a unique position to make a CHANGE that will slow down Obama's momentum just long enough to give Democrats time to find out more information about Obama. If the voting in these states results in Obama becoming the nominee, the Republicans will be the ones who will find out what Democrat voters should have known before casting their vote.

1. What is behind the Obama's original decision to keep voters from reading Michelle's college senior thesis by temporarily withdrawing it from all viewing or duplication until the day after the general election? Princeton reported that this restriction is scheduled to be lifted no later than Nov. 5, 2008.

The Obama campaign recently released a copy of the thesis to politico.com who posted it in a Feb. 22 article titled, Michelle Obama thesis was on racial divide. The link is: www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html Her thesis gives the results of a study she did at Princeton, using replies from questionnaires she sent to black Princeton graduates.

2. Oprah said she is for Obama because he is brilliant. Voters should read an article in the Los Angeles times about some of his oops votes in the Illinois senate. The link is: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story

3. Obama lets supporters believe that in 2002 he voted against the Iraq war. He was in the Illinois senate in 2002. When a reporter asked him how he would have voted, he said he didn't know. Why didn't he just say he would have voted no?

4. He spoke out against the IRAN resolution, but he stayed on the campaign trail and dodged the vote. When a reporter asked him why he missed the important vote, he said he apologizes for that.

5. When he was questioned about buying a piece of property next to his house from Tony Rezko's wife, he calmly said that was a bonehead mistake. He also downplayed his association with Rezko. Maybe there's more to his association with Rezko and maybe there's not. However, voters should be able to find out one way or another.

6. With Obama's oops votes in the Illinois senate, his letting people who are supporting him think he voted against the war, his tendency to worry about what his official voting record shows, and his dodging the vote on the Iran resolution are issues that voters should think about.

7. If Obama wins the presidency, he will run for a second term in four years. He missed the Iran resolution vote because he wanted to make sure that his voting record didn't show any vote. That way, his opponents would not be able to use a no vote against him in case that wasn't the right way to vote...and his opponents won't be able to beat on him like he has been beating on Hillary. Obama supporters can only hope that if he is elected president, his decisions will be geared toward what is best for our country and not what is best for getting re-elected in four years.

Please take the time to go to the links referred to in 1 and 2.

Posted by: mafox1 | February 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Clinton supporters, supposedly hardcore democrats, consistently saying that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, they are voting McCain, Nader, bin Laden, etc....? Could it be that many of the Clinton supporters are really closet racists? Barack's views are not that different from Hillary's, so it can't be that. They are both Democrats. They are both sitting U.S. Senators. The only excuse out there is because Barack is black. Look, Barack did not cause all the b/s thats out there against Hillary. It was there long before he burst on the national scene. The Clinton record stands on its own legs, for better or worse. As for the idea that Barack can be blamed for the comments, views, and responses of his supporters is absolute stupidity. I can say what I want on behalf of Barack, but don't attribute what I say to Barack, fools. Trust me, I don't believe everything you Hillary zealots say about Barack as being her personal view. She puts her foot in her mouth quite well on her own, thank you.

Posted by: OmegaPrime | February 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama should wear criticism from Nader as a badge of honor. Nader is self-serving scum.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

mbrlr:

You are familiar with Rape Shield Laws enacted after she attacked this 12-year old's credibility, right?

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON DEFENDED A RAPIST IN HER PAST

BREAKING NEWS

Yeah, her husband.

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

If you're an Obama supporter like me, please think Long and Hard before you start knocking Hillary Clinton for "vigorously doing her job as a defense attorney for a child rapist back in '75." Some things just suck--and there are aspects to our legal system that certainly do. But it wasn't as if Hillary chose to be appointed to that particular mission. A court told her to do it, and she was legally and ethically bound to give her client the best defense she could. She did. There's nothing dishonorable about that. There's ample evidence (from her subsequent work) to suggest that she would have been repulsed by that task. But she did what she (ethically) was required to do.

Trying to paint her with this particular brush would be a political smear-job of the worst type (no finger-pointing about anybody else's tactics, please). I'm confident that Barack is ethical (and smart) enough to be above it, and I hope that we, his supporters, will be inclined to be above it as well.

Posted by: slowgenius | February 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Svreader (and Iowatreasures), if I had only read your last 2 posts I would agree with you and be sympathetic. It is true that everyone has the right to their own opinion and to share it in a respectful way. No one is trying to silence you.

However, I think you both have a real perception problem about how you write on these forums. You need to actually read some of the vitriolic comments that you write about Obama to understand why you have upset people.

You are both well known on the WashPost forums because of the rabid, unbalanced tone of and repetitiveness of your attacks against Obama. You both rarely take "the high ground" and rarely pose your comments in a neutral way based on disagreements with policy. Your emotional attacks are often quite personal to Obama, Obama supporters, and are so polarizing (i.e., "I'll never vote for the democrats again!!!!"), that it is hard to take you both seriously. It also does a disservice to your candidate of choice, Hillary, who can stand on her own to feet and deserves supporters that represent her well.

I find it interesting what "thin skin" you have when you perceive that the attacks are personal against you. Yet, you have no compunction about personally attacking Obama or his supporters. Maybe you should take the feelings that you have when you are the subject of an attack and extrapolate and learn from them.

We all have a right to our opinion. And everyone else also has a right to call us on those opinions. That is called free speech and it goes both ways.

I think everyone should remember that the democratic race is so close because both candidates are capable and attractive. Regardless of who you support, the fact that you support a democrat should be the higher calling if you are indeed a democrat. I am an independent and I will make my own choice in November on who has made the best case. The personal attacks on supporters of Obama and Hillary are unnecessary. Let's elevate this discussion.

Posted by: hillmannic | February 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

She's a lawyer. As an attorney, she had an obligation to represent her client. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (well, except at Guantanamo, may God and the Founding Fathers forgive us) and she was simply representing her client as required by her ethical responsibility as an attorney.

Having said that, with Edwards out of the race, my wife and I are for Obama. He's an American, folks, and he's not a muslim. Even if he were, that would be his right; to be frightened due to his religion is about as un-American as you can get and directly opposite to the views of our Founders.

Also, his wife's comments were perfectly appropriate. Many Americans feel no pride in our country right now due to some shameful things we've done or allowed to happen both within and without the nation. Americans are a free people, and if that means thinking the US is doing something shameful and acting upon that concern is somehow unpatriotic...nonsense. That's true patriotism and love for our country.

Posted by: mbrlr | February 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

maq1:

You know I am not a Hillary supporter, but you have to do more than simply "ignore" her -- it is not a "smear" to publish photographs of Obama -- do you really think that Obama has done an excellent job of responding to this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Where is Michelle? They put her under wraps.

Posted by: jaywpat | February 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I just like facts. Heres one to consider, when posting about all the negative treatment of HRC from the obama campaign.

Do you all know who is running his campaign - you guessed it the same architects of Bill Clinton 1992. Same group, no new comers same team. That is why they are being effective. All the major players from Bill C of 1992 are running the obama camp today. And believe it or not, it is EXACTLY the same campaign they used for him to win then. Hope and change, it worked before and is working again. Hillary did not want to attach herself to that message for fear of being compared to Bill, so the team took their successful strategy to teh next candidate.

So for those of you who truly know politics this should be telling in itself. If they all supported Bill in 1992, why are they suddenly supporting Obama. I do not know the answer, I just find this interesting.

Posted by: J_thinks | February 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters - turn your back on all the ugly smears coming out of your candidates campaign. She has made clear that her ego is more important than the democratic party. Lets rally around the popular candidate - Obama will lead an inclusive and growing democratic party. if you carry around hillary's ego on your backs forever, it will crush you like it has many others.

Turn your back on the smears and whispers. for the sake of the party.

Posted by: maq1 | February 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton smears and whispers her way into the general election, I will NOT VOTE and I will at the first opportunity i have change my affiliation to independent. Her ego will sink the party.

Senator Clinton, Please end the smears and whispers.

Posted by: maq1 | February 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats face a big problem after this convention. The word is unity. If Obama wins,many of us Clinton supporters are upset with the ugly comments from Obama supporters that we are old ladies. If Clinton wins,then Obama youngsters will stay home. We old ladies have watched history unfold and fear this lack of unity. After this is over, Senator Clinton will still be around as a national leader for the party. She has shown her leadership qualities in this campaign. Should Obama win the nomination,he will need to provide unity if Clinton supporters are not upset by their unfair treatment also from mass media. A.B.

Posted by: ddolgin | February 25, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats face a big problem after this convention. The word is unity. If Obama wins,many of us Clinton supporters are upset with the ugly comments from Obama supporters that we are old ladies. If Clinton wins,then Obama youngsters will stay home. We old ladies have watched history unfold and fear this lack of unity. After this is over, Senator Clinton will still be around as a national leader for the party. She has shown her leadership qualities in this campaign. Should Obama win the nomination,he will need to provide unity if Clinton supporters are not upset by their unfair treatment also from mass media. A.B.

Posted by: ddolgin | February 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

ASinMoCo:

You really think that Obama has done an excellent job of responding to this attack?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Most posts from Obama supporters are anti-Clinton screeds.

Whenever someone posts in favor of Clinton, or brings up concerns or negatives about Obama, Obama supporters attack the personally.

What does this tell us about the kind of national campaign Obama would run?

How does trashing Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic leader in recent history, the only one who was able to defeat the Republicans and pass Democratic policies, help Democrats?

How does insulting Clinton supporters help win their hearts and minds, or create good will and unite the party?


Posted by: svreader | February 25, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Why has the vote count in Washington's (state)Feb 19 primary been stuck at 62% for the last 5 days? Did Hillary win and someones afraid to post it because 800,000 people voted in it as opposed to 31,000 in the caucus'

Posted by: jmfromdc | February 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama has done an excellent job of responding to the attacks on him that are coming from all corners. I also think it's cute the way some Clinton supporters interpret any response by Obama to Clinton's attacks to be below the belt. When someone says something false about you and you set the record straight, it is not an attack. It's standing up for yourself. Obama's doing a great job of it :)

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

HRC jeers and ridicules Obama as not having a magic wand that will overcome the dark realities of Wash DC, but seems to think it realistic to consider sarcasm and wise cracks as ways to win over the opposition.

Posted by: maddymappo | February 25, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I read the boards here on the WaPo frequently, and I have commented a few times. I am beginning to think if will be hard for Obama to win this election, inspite of the throngs of people who gather to hear him spout his platitutes of "yes we can", "hope" and "change". I see how angry the HRC people are over they way their candidate has been treated by Obama and his handlers/supporters. I don't know how he can mend the serious rift in his own party once he gets the nomination (let's face it, this is indeed inevitable). Once he gets the nomination, he will receive scrutiny at least from the Republicans, and I don't know how he will stand up to that. The Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright connections would have destroyed him earlier on if he had been properly vetted. And, despite what others have written here, his wife's remarks on patriotism are going to resonate with a lot of people who, like me, are not jingoistic war-mongers. Maybe, once he is the nominee, the press and the public will do their jobs and look at his very real shortcomings, instead of his dazzling oratorical skills. Otherwise, I fear we could wind up with another GWB in January, 2009.

Posted by: mooshu20 | February 25, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

parkerfl wrote: "Obama can basically ignore Hillary and her rants by now; she's done, so it's time to focus on McCain."

Shhhhhhh! Go back to sleep. Everything will be okay. Sweet dreams. Not to worry. HE will have the choir help you slumber.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 25, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Two things: (1) Barack is right in taking the stand that Hillary Clinton has essentially presented herself as a co-president with her husband, William Jefferson, as part of a mysterious 35 years of experience. She only wants to use his presidency when it's convenient. She wants to claim participation for the good things in Bill's presidency (particularly a robust economy). NAFTA was a part of that presidency and an economic policy. Now suddenly she wants to distance herself from his presidency. Somebody tell her she can't have it both ways. (2) What I consistently hear is peopole regurgitating what media personnell have thought and said. Anybody can be a parrot and repeat something previously said. Can anyone come up with their own thoughts on any of these matters?

Posted by: setariq | February 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama can basically ignore Hillary and her rants by now; she's done, so it's time to focus on McCain.

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

Posted by: parkerfl | February 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Definition of bottom up politics for those who are confused.

If the people want it, it will happen. Just to be clear, whenever, and I mean ALWAYS, when the people demand something of their government they get it - whether right or wrong. I think that is what obama (right or wrong) is saying.

His message is together YOU can do it - congress will 99.9 percent of the time go with what their constituents want - that is who they represent, and they want to get re-elected to their job. That is why the politicians always campaign on the topics that the people care about.

Again, I would support either HRC or obama - but please stop confusing reality of both candidates. Both have good messages and plans to implement them.

Posted by: J_thinks | February 25, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign and the superdelegates supporting her will have to answer for their decision to tear the party apart. Voters will hold them accountable.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

In my own search, I am grateful for these comments. The opposition between Spiffy2 and Cali-Gram corresponds to my dilemma.

Undecided, I attended Obama's Dallas rally TRYING TO HEAR SPECIFICS, and I did hear some. I continue to believe I speak for many: Constantly hearing "hope" and "change" in an atmosphere of pseudo-religion leaves us queasy and suspicious. It sounds too much like, "Trust me. I will take you where you need to go. I will figure out some way to pay for it." I can attest that most in the enormous crowd seemed ready and willing to follow. As a senior citizen, this phenomenon does remind me of Hitler, something I have said to my family for weeks even as Obama has charmed me. (Please try to understand before attacking me. I am NOT saying that Obama is Hitler. I do think he parallel's Hitler's magnificent talent for addressing a crowd and rousing an audience to a very high level of trust. Others compare the combination of arena rallies, passionate outpourings, and religion/entertainment to rock concerts. Since this is about politics, they remind me of Hitler.

As much as Obama charms me, "feel" is not good enough when so much is at stake, even when those feelings involve concern, love of country, and a passion for change (that word again!). Thank you, Cali-Gram, for directing us to "issues" on Obama's Web site. I will continue to study.

Spiffy2 says Obama "thinks that totalitarian dictators like Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are good people." Although I have not heard Obama make that direct statement, many of the specifics I heard Wednesday can only be described as cries for a more socialistic/communistic approach than we have had in the past. Obama would enter U.S. history as "The Great Leveler." Some of his leveling specifics ("All children will be fully prepared to enter first grade," for example) seem downright foolish; others, like revamping the healthcare system, seemed more reasonable.

It seems true that an Obama office in Houston displayed a Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guavera: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915_Che_Guevara_Flags_in_Obamas_Houston_Office&only If it is true, I have trouble understanding why anyone in a political campaign would do something so devisive and offensive.

Posted by: lalo60 | February 25, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Yes he can! Obama is very effective at responding to attacks against him. He is very effective at making trivial attacks look, well, trivial. If the other candidates cannot put forth a solid vision that can transcend his rather ambiguous message, they are toast.

His staff appear to be well versed in coaching him and presenting him in the best possible light. Gotta hand it to 'em. I won't be voting for any liberal in the fall and hope that he doesn't get elected, but its clear he is an exceptional talent and the best the Dems have got.

Posted by: magellan1 | February 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Great! Hillary has found her inner Margaret Thatcher. Now for some slicing and dicing.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Whew! You fight em, 'Racky! Who's 'untested,' again?

Posted by: scharb | February 25, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Just vote people, that is what seems to be the big point here isnt it? The voters (american people) are the ones deciding who wins. And from the looks of it, obama is doing well - better than expected.

I like both candidates, and would gladly support either. But a myopic viewpoint of if my guy/gal lost I will take my ball and go home in disgust is shallow.

We teach sportsmanship, honesty and being gracious even in defeat to our kids, but what we are showing is we will do and say anything to contradict that message with clear "free speech" hate.

The people are voting, and if the voters are considered numskulls for how they are voting - then america has a much larger problem on its hands. Especially, if the argument is they are uninformed and making rash decisions.

Clinton and Obama are qualified for the job - do not get lost in the sore loser message. The race is not over, HRC may still pull it off, she is a formidable politician with impressive skills. But the voters will decide and THEIR decision should be the only one that matters.

Posted by: J_thinks | February 25, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

No one of those football fans is running to become President of U.S.A., except Obama, who probably is one. Just because you are a football fan does't excuse one from being patriotic to his/her country. Even boxers in the ring, put their gloves over their hearts when their country's national anthym is played. Maybe his 5 years in a foreign country, while singing "tanah airku, disanalah aku berdiri," ,,,our native land, where we all arise to stand guard, do not do what we patriotic citizens are doing. This is omenous and something to think about.

Posted by: Campoton | February 25, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Ya, Obama can come up with an explanation for every mistake he or his wife makes, but he can't find any rationale for Hillary's mistakes. Hillary's votes on Iraq war resolution and NAFTA were in keeping with the prevailing wisdom and environment of the time at which the votes were taken. John Kerry made the same mistakes that Hillary made, and Obama used his flowery oratory in 2004 Democratic convention to support John Kerry. And remember, this is coming from a candidate who is willing to give drivers licences to Latinos merely to get their votes in the elections. Compared to NAFTA vote, that is pure pandering. Hypocrisy can go no further. The attack lines from Obama camp are below the belt on every issue. His wife can say that he could not find any pride in her country until her husband became a potential nominee for president. He has no need to show respect for his country's flag or national anthem. He can clarify these actions, and the media is ready to forgive. Beyond his flowery oratory, Obama appears self-centered and mean spirited. This is not the kind of individual who is going to unite the country. He is not even able unite the democrats. His nomination as the presidential candidate for the democratic party may not be wise, because he has not been fully tested like Hillary has been. He is not steadfast in his character, and he can be a serious distraction on the security issue, and his commitment to democratic causes.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 25, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse


We can draw some conclusions from this state of affairs at this point:

1) When you have three candidates, almost all three of them focusing on Mr Obama, by slandering him, you are definitely sure that he is a threat to the three candidates. At least for the two most important. Nader is only the same old ego satisfying.

2) Moreover by doing so, they show that they have nothing to offer to the voters, contrary to Obama.

3)Once again, Nader is here to play his own selfish and sterile little childish game. He knows he has nothing to offer, no program, no supporters nation wide; but he however announces his candidature.
His predicted score:0.2% or 0.3% will do the same thing as 8 years ago: help the Neo Cons keep power.

Disgusting Mr Nader!

Posted by: bekabo | February 25, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

and now you all know why the republicans and fox news wanted so desperately to face HRC in the general election.

Posted by: bproulx45 | February 25, 2008 6:24 AM | Report abuse

Whine, whine whine! Would Obama like some cheese with that whine? If he thinks it's tough now, just what until he has to deal with the problems facing the US now--like the economy, jobs, the trade imbalance, the Federal deficit, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, global trade deals, Nuclear threats, global warming, health care, education, terrorism and a thousand other items that will be waiting to be dealt with on the WH desk for the incoming President. We need a President ready to hit the ground running, not a whiner.

Posted by: morningglory51 | February 25, 2008 6:23 AM | Report abuse

Spiffy 2

When did you leave the human race? I resent being referred to as "deranged". Your "abrasive and ugly" rantings indicate that this word aptly fits your own post. Shame!!

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 25, 2008 5:26 AM | Report abuse

B. Hussein Obama and his deranged supporters will have a sobering wake up call come November if he makes it that far.

I am an HRC supporter and I will proudly vote for McCain if Obama successfully cons his way to November.

Apparently, he (Obama) along with all of his black supporters think that everyone is going to automatically jump on his black boat and vote for him on the basis of his skin color should Hillary not get the nomination. They're wrong!

And, to have the gall to say that he will attain the votes of ALL of Hillary's supporters proves that this closeted Muslim is not only extremely arrogant but also truly delusional.

Obama, along with his equally abrasive and ugly wife think that this campaign is about "Black Power" and that it is their god given right to reside in the White House. Not!

Folks, there's nothing scarier than "black power.

I don't trust this man, I'm not white and I'm certainly not black so I'd much rather have "white power" any time, any day. Heck, I would vote for G.W. Bush himself before I vote for a closeted Muslim and a communist such as Obama who thinks that totalitarian dictators like Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are good people. In fact, I think he thinks of them as "brothers".


Vote responsibly:
Vote 4 Hillary or vote for McCain.

Anyone, but Obama!
(We can't afford another Jimmy Carter)

Posted by: Spiffy2 | February 25, 2008 5:13 AM | Report abuse

Our current "deciders" in the White House have failed miserably to act for the people. The failures began long before GWB took over. The large corporations profited immensely from outsourcing, and manufacturing became a foreign affair. We no longer have the option of selecting goods that bear the reassuring familiar tags that proudly state, "Made in the USA".
Terrorist attacks around the world were on the increase during the Clinton years of 1992 - 2000. The bitter fact is that Osama bin Laden was the main suspect, and his Al Qaeda group of terrorists gained in strength and boldness. There is much speculation on the "if only'" and "whys" of how he managed to evade capture. The Bush Administration has not been able to avoid their share of blame after the attacks of 9/11. Americans, whether at home or abroad, can no longer escape the horrific acts of violence against innocent men, women and children. Some say that America is responsible for the death of innocent civilians in Iraq, acts of violence. Other Americans will claim that America was acting "in the name of democracy" and therefore these deaths are just unfortunate casualties of war.
Our country has acquired many enemies among nations that once regarded us as allies. Now, it seems that we have to pay our "allies" to join our war efforts , in non-combatant roles of course. The idea was to present a show of solidarity, a united front in support of G. W. Bush and his "War on Terror." Then, to make it appear that we are bringing peace among the different sects in Iraq, we pay some of these "friendly combatants" in a country that we invaded to "not shoot" us.
I voted for Barack Obama because I feel that there is "an urgency of now", and I want to believe that there is more to life than just "getting by". Life is precious; we do not need to send any more of our people off to fight senseless "no win" wars. There is a stark warning left by John F. Kennedy, who said, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind". We can't change the past, and should not forget it, but let's look toward the future. Don't you think it's about time we had a say in what goes on in White House? Go for it. For those you who are cynical, try listening to the words that "we" are hearing, and feel the concern, the love of country, and the passion for change that Barack Obama is offering us. He is asking us to feel "hope" instead of "hopeless". I'm just not ready to give up yet. BTW: I'm white, if that matters, (it shouldn't) female, if that matters, (it shouldn't) and I'm seventy-one. (That only matters to me, as time flies now.) I'm just not ready to sit back in my rocking chair and wait for the end. I want to banish my anxiety about the covert behavior of our government. Too many secrets and claims of immunity in the search for truth, it's a parody of justice. I want to CHANGE the way our government operates, I want to be part of that approval group that votes "no" on bridges to nowhere. We have work to do, to CHANGE this country into a government by the people. I want transparency (that's a CHANGE) in government, and spending where it is most needed, not directed by powerful lobbyist pressure. Yes, it will take determination, there is much work to accomplish, but, yes, we can CHANGE this country into a government by the people. There it is again, that word has gotten so popular, "CHANGE".
OK. Yes We Can I want to view the ceremony next January of the inauguration of our next President of the United States, Barack Obama. Yes We Can
Barack Obama has provided his detailed solutions to the issues facing our country, you will find the truth on his views at his website: barackobama.com, under "issues".

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 25, 2008 4:50 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has the multi-generational appeal to inspire people of all ages, shapes and shades to feel hope for ourselves and for our country. We need to acknowledge that the concept of hope provides us a powerful motivation for change. We need to have a willingness to "talk it out" instead of "duke it out". Barack Obama has the vision, ability to inspire and the leadership skills to guide us all in the same direction. To rekindle the spark of optimism that lies within us. To rouse the burned-out spirits of cynics who have witnessed the continual erosion of America's government for the people. To challenge those who insist on saying we cannot change government so why bother. Until I really "heard" what Barack Obama was telling us, I was one of the disenchanted. For many years, our country has become more like the "Divided States of America". Our government acquired an "attitude", an "us against them" approach that has led to more animosity from without and within our borders. Our invasion of Iraq proclaimed to the world that we are aggressive and arrogant. We have fallen even further from our once revered role as a peace-loving nation, and our national debt is staggering. Barack Obama was a candidate for the U. S. Senate in October 2002. At an anti-war rally, he risked his political career to state his opposition of invading Iraq, an unpopular view at that time. He stated that war against Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. He said that this would only serve to strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. He had the wisdom, understood foreign policy, and accurately predicted the grim outcome of the mistake that has been so costly in so many ways.
As a community organizer for a church-based group, Barack Obama worked to help residents of some of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. He determined that he could accomplish more for people if he had a law degree. After he earned his law degree, Obama worked as a civil rights lawyer, and served in the Illinois State Senate for six years. He won his position in the U. S. Senate in 2004. His ten years of legislative experience combined with his unique ability to secure bi-partisan solutions makes him the ideal Presidential candidate. He has integrity, verifiable experience, and comes to us with no strings attached. He does not owe anybody any favors, no "pay-back nominations" for government jobs to unqualified individuals. Barack Obama can help us move forward, to be once more the "United States of America". I believe we can do it, together. Barack Obama continues his work to support educational improvement and opportunity. Our educational system has failed, and only seventy percent of high school students earn a diploma. We need to start with young children and get behind them every step of the way. No child in America should go to school hungry, or ill, or go without health care. Many children of poor working parents return home to no supervision and empty apartments. They even possess a "name tag"; they are "latch-key children". There isn't much waiting for them after school; it gets no better as they age. There isn't much in the way of hope, help and happy faces waiting to greet them. They are children of poverty, nameless, faceless children, who have no voices, and no choices. They need so much to grow into the adults of tomorrow that will be in charge of our world. Let us work together to CHANGE this picture. We need to give them hope, and help, not just crayons to draw a shining sun and bright flowers. Obama has concerns and solutions to the growing problems caused by poverty, by our failing economy, and inattention to the crumbling structures in this place we call home.

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 25, 2008 4:48 AM | Report abuse

Nader and Obama peeps are going to have a wild internet orgy over the next 8 months.

I feel sick again. At least HRC is now mocking Obama. That does not work to well because 20 percent of Americans are priggish dolts. But I enjoy it.

Q. Why is it so much easier for sexist language to be used on the message board than racist? It is so common people don't notice.

Posted by: mul | February 25, 2008 4:09 AM | Report abuse

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Ahh dude go read a book there is some physics involved can't just wish it.... Or can you?

Posted by: mul | February 25, 2008 3:54 AM | Report abuse

I found this to be a good article looking at both candidates

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=328070

Posted by: MAB2 | February 25, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

For those who think Hillary doesn;t have a wealth of support, check out this site

http://www.hillaryspeaksforme.com/

I found it very inspiring to see all these videos about why people are choosing to vote for her. This just launched this weekend and there is already tons of personal videos.

Posted by: MAB2 | February 25, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

qcs, your personal feelings are contradicted by the polls. Bummer.

Posted by: stvn_le | February 25, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Here is why Obama and McCain have sold out America and Nader is best:

Over the past few months, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates - Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain - which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Again, only Ralph Nader

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What's on the table?

Taking these issues seriously - all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Clinton, Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

We would be happily out of business.

But we've waited so very long - and still - not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

Posted by: bhatttt | February 25, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

I personally feel that Obama has cost the Democrats the White House in November.
I don't think he has a chance against McCain; however, Hillary could possibly have won.
But now with Nader in the race, we are sure to have a Republican in the White House.
How much do you think the GOP paid Nader to enter the race? They should have saved their money, Obama will loose in November anyway!

Posted by: qcs123 | February 25, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Please tell me one "scandal" for which Hillary Clinton was not exonerated. One.

Posted by: monk4hall | February 24, 2008 07:55 PM

-------------------------------
You are using the term "exonerate" to literally mean "cleared of charges". This is also backed up by the primary definition in "The American College Dictionary". You, however, seem to be wanting us to think she was found to be totally innocent in these investigations. To be "cleared of all charges" and "totally innocent" is a far cry from the reality of what the various investigations actually found.

This is an e-mail I wrote and sent to friends several weeks ago. I have posted it on other sites in the past.


Just a brief note regarding two of the items Mr Starr investigated about Hillary; White Water and Travel Gate.

First, White Water.

There were no charges brought, not no evidence found, which is a BIG difference. What was the chief reason, least we forget, that insufficient evidence was found to bring charges? Susan H. McDougal!

Ms. McDougal refused to answer "three questions" for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. For this, she was one of few people to actually serve prison time; fifteen people were convicted! She served 18 months for contempt of court, though she actually served a total of 22 months. She was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

And then there was Travelgate.

Remember? Unwarranted investigations by the FBI were used to terminate the employment of several people working in the White House Travel Office. These people were replaced by Hillary's friends.

Only media attention forced the Clintons to bring most of those employees back, though in different jobs, and Billary's friends were removed from the Travel Office.

Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement but acquitted. Ken Starr exonerated Bill Clinton of any involvement. The next Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, said in his final report on Travelgate that Hillary had made factually false statements but did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges against her.

Both of these are examples not of innocence, as seems to be implied in the opening quote, but of a successful attempt to cover up the true depth of her involvement.

I have seen Billary proudly state that she is the most vetted (investigated) of all the candidates and further stated that she was always found innocent. This is a blatant stretch of the truth which, as a lawyer, she is well aware of. The phrases "insufficient evidence being found to bring charges", "innocent", and/or "exonerated" are not synonymous.

LG, in Santa Cruz, CA.

Posted by: toonman | February 25, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

smith.jack
"Making it seem", "it just seems like". Prosecute a murderer in a court room with, "it seems like he committed murder."
In any case, Obama is a politician with political tact. To not offend anyone by saying any candidate had built-in advantages for this presidential election (I'm sure supporters have their arguments. i.e. Hillary has Bill, Barack is black), let's say the playing field was even. With an absolute objective standpoint, Obama and his campaign proved to be superior.

Can we get over these kinds of remarks?

Bravo to Clinton. Cheers to victory, Obama.

Posted by: stvn_le | February 25, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | February 25, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | February 25, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | February 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid. -Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar." Mark Twain from "Following the Equator," 1897.

Hillary Clinton and several of her supporters are late in actively using ad hominium attack on Barack Obama. Equate Mr. Obama with Mr. Carl Rove in his tactics is one example of too little too late. What bothers Mrs. Clinton (among many attacks on Mr. Obama) are two brochures or mailers first mailed at least a week ago and presented in blogs like "The Note" and "First Read" at least a week ago. What has changed since their publication is one source Long Island Newsday which characterized her views of NAFTA as a "boon." When the original remarks were published in the NY newspaper, she, nor any of her representatives objected to the characterization of her remarks.

Is this the stuff that Carl Rove is made of? Hillary's experience in the White House she purports makes her ready to lead from "DAY ONE." She is proud of her support for "universal" health care. Some would say her efforts united the GOP to later take over both branches of Congress. Democrats were less rather than more successful while Mrs. Clinton experienced the last years of the past century from the White House. A tactical response to Mr. Obama--days after the fact--is more the response of a Claude Rains played Louie, "There's gambling here, I'm shocked" of Casablanca.

Mrs. Clinton speaks not a word to the consequences to those who do not want to participate in another government mandate. Mr. Obama respects people as adults are able to make their own choices.

pdxgordon

Posted by: pdxgordon | February 24, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama's making it seem like he's going to swoop into Washington, unite Republicans and Democrats together on his side of the issues, tear down all Interest Group and Special Interests, and he won't make mistakes doing it.

This isn't Staples... you can't just hit the Easy button and everything will be fixed.

If he's the frontrunner, why is he lying about Hillary's view on Healthcare? That's not the *change* he's been talking about in his speeches.

I just wish he would do what he says in his speeches... it just seems like the changes he talks about are dreams that he has as opposed to what he'll actually be able to do.

Posted by: smith.jack | February 24, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

I am thoroughly impressed by Obama's ability to stand his ground. I don't condone the attacks against Obama and even Clinton in these comments.

Stand together, stand Democratic (that is, if you consider yourself one, of course).

Obama and Clinton are politicians. Clinton was simply outplayed and Obama isn't a superior, godly being (nor do his supporters think him to be one).

I'm glad to be a part of this time in history, to be witnessing a strong and respectable Hillary Clinton running against (and with, as a Democratic) a truly impressive Barack Obama.

I stand united with my neighbouring Clinton and Obama supporters to elect the eventual nominee.

Posted by: stvn_le | February 24, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Jac. I'm actually a white male in his early 40's, so I'm guessing it was also wildly inaccurate.

Cheers

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

BB -

Shouldn't be repeated. I'll just say that it was blatantly racist and sexist. Glad they took it down.

Posted by: jac13 | February 24, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

The fact is both Obama's mailers are distorted. It may not be completely false, i.e. it is true that Hillary supports universal health care, etc. But, he is practicing distortion tactics.

Obama claims that he doesn't practice "old politics" and will provide people "change and hope" of new politics which doesn't practice the same "old" politic tactics.

Obama is lying when he gave his "hope" and "change" speeches. Regard,less of what Clinton did or anybody did, it is Obama who made promises to people that he already breaks right in front of our eyes.

Wake up people! The point is, he is the more of the same!!!

Posted by: jmaj | February 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I voted in California in 2004 and did nothing to keep kerry out of office nor put bush in. sorry.

cfc

Then we should thank God for making your vote meaningless.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

I voted in California in 2004 and did nothing to keep kerry out of office nor put bush in. sorry.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

jac13 - I'm kinda curious about what ebubuk said before it was deleted (if it was addressed to me). Ah well, the spam and racist post are gone.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU WASHINGTON POST!

I truly enjoy the cut and thrust of the boards and feel those with strong, but well-expressed opinions (svreader, usmc_mike, zouk, krishna...) should be given space. One poster, however, went way over the line tonight and I am pleased to see that these posts are gone. [I do think that the penguin book should not have been censored, but I'm waaaay off topic here.]

Incidentally, I think Stewart's comment was funny.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

PS, a person good at politics does not make him/her a good president. Bush is a good example.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

You can put ethics above competence, especially when the person professing competence has such a thin track record of showing competence. Hillary has only a few more years than Obama in the senate and not a day longer in an executive position. We always take this "eight year" chance and I'm comfortable with Obama. I'm not comfortable with the ethics of HRC in her drive to win. Not in the eight years of Bill in the White House when he showed himself capable of selling out any and all democratic values to win election and reelection. case closed and I'm not a spring chicken with starry eyes. I remember Nixon and his ultimate game of "realpolitik" and i'm not impressed by Hillary's claim to possess that kind of sense.

cfc


The only thing I can see about you is that you are one of the "moral value" voters who help defeat Kerry in 2004 and put Bush in office for another 4 years. I thank you for that!

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 24, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary! On Thursday she made "nice" by directly quoting hubby and the Tarheel. She even came across as if she finally woke up and smelled the Java. Now, out of nowhere, she explodes in a hissy-fit about charges thrown across the table that she was not as good a co-prezzy as she's implied for the past 8 years. Home-girl is truly coming across as a post-menapausal bi-polarite, which really won't help her much in the eyes of most of the guys. Sorry, had to say that.

Posted by: muesslix | February 24, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

You can put ethics above competence, especially when the person professing competence has such a thin track record of showing competence. Hillary has only a few more years than Obama in the senate and not a day longer in an executive position. We always take this "eight year" chance and I'm comfortable with Obama. I'm not comfortable with the ethics of HRC in her drive to win. Not in the eight years of Bill in the White House when he showed himself capable of selling out any and all democratic values to win election and reelection. case closed and I'm not a spring chicken with starry eyes. I remember Nixon and his ultimate game of "realpolitik" and i'm not impressed by Hillary's claim to possess that kind of sense.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

OK, here it comes. Now he's Hitler. I guess it was only a matter of time before that one surfaced.

If you don't want to vote for the guy, don't. If you think your candidate is better, tell us why.

But please, please, stop the exaggerated personal attacks and insults.

Posted by: jac13 | February 24, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Stewart couldn't resist using the platform of the Oscars to make sure everyone in this country knows Obama's middle name is Hussein and he uses his name in the same sentence as Hitler?

What a paranoid bunch!

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 24, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Nader's been out there, you just haven't been listening. Don't demonize for running again. He didn't make the crucial diffrence in 2000; a mistake made by democrats in attributing the loss of gore in florida. It should never have even been that close that his margin could have made a difference. Gore blew that first by a lousy campaign and second by not challenging results for the whole state. He's got the right to run. He won't be the margin this time either, btw - not if Obama sticks to the issues and keeps running the campaign like he has.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

What's the deal with the whole national anthem and pledge thing anyway? One should be able to go enjoy a game or attend school without having it be turned into a goddamn loyalty test. And the idea that for these poor kids it's day after day after day...

"But Miss Killjoy, I've already pledged allegiance to the flag a hundred and thirty-six times this year! Don't you believe me by now?"

"No! Say it again!!"

You shouldn't have to be required to take some sort of loyalty oath just to participate in normal, day to day activities. It's literally a form of secular religion, complete with self-appointed priests ("patriots") and false prophets (Faux News, Limbaugh, etc.). It seems patriotism is the only virtue where claiming it is equal to having it. Not too many people walk around saying "Look how smart I am!" "I make a lot of money!" "I love my family! Do you?!?" They either do it and people see it, or they don't do it and people see it. Why can't it be the same with patriotism?

Those who are truly patriotic don't need to parade it or pronounce it - they just do it. Those who truly love their country don't make a habit of hating their fellow countrymen.

Posted by: treetopflyer | February 24, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

You make a fundamental mistake when you accuse Obama supporters of only wanting to bash Hillary Clinton. We just don't like her politics, ok? she does have a record to run on and it doesn't look very good from where we stand.

cfc

You make a fatal mistake by trying to understand politics which you have no idea what it is. All professional politicians use tricks that you may consider dirty just to survive. The longer they are in the public eye, the dirtier they look. If you want someone clean, you really should consider a non politician, best a scientist (America never have one) in the white house.

On the other hand, it does not really matter how politician achieve their goals, as long as the goal matches your interest and the interest of most people. This is the only choice people have in a democracy, after Nov. and if you found you made a mistake, it will be 8 years to suffer. We can not put ethics above competence, we cannot let slogans veil the fact. We need to open Obama's closet and let people see if he is really good for us.

It will never change my mind if republicans tell me Obama do more women than Bill, or he is bisexual. But don't tell me he is great for me without evidence to prove it. If no one will be good for me, I will choose the one with the least chance of damage, and vote accordingly.

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

sv...,sv...,sv...! My, did I strike a nerve? I never once said anything about your not being able to remain on this board. I only stated affirmatively that I reject your liberal 'group think', condecending, repetitive and dissmissive posts of all who whould dare to have a thought different from yours.
I do not recall ever once trying to tell you, or anyone else for that matter, whom to vote for. Nor, have I ever disparaged your choice of candidates. Civil discourse should be just that, civil. So, chill!

Focus now! And just breathe. This, too, shall pass! Don't hate! Just participate!

Posted by: bldlcc | February 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

The only time we hear anything from Ralph is when there's a major election; apart from that, he's hiding under his rock, quiet as a mouse. He's a few years older than McCain; chances are he wouldn't last through his first term.

With all of the attacks on Obama from Clinton, McCain, and now Nader, it only shows me one thing; Clinton, McCain, and Nader are all very afraid of Obama. All the more reason that I will be voting for Obama.

Posted by: camera_eye_1 | February 24, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"Please tell me one "scandal" for which Hillary Clinton was not exonerated. One."

The missing billing records.

Posted by: thrh
-------------------------------------------

Gollee. Wasn't the billing records a part of the $60 million investigation. You mean those sorry a**ed Repubs took pity and let her off the hook. Gollee. I read Starr's report, but I don"t remember the indictment. You don't think someone is telling fibs, do you. Surely not a Repub or Obamanite

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Who are more irritating - Obama Cultist - Nader Voters - Religious Right - Hillery peeps like me.

Posted by: mul | February 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Beware of a Demagogue who could lead you Not to Heaven but Hell.....Hitler did it and what about this time in 2008

Posted by: extremesouth | February 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

I must apologize for my earlier post. I just reviewed the current code. It reveals bascially that saying the pledge of allegiance and signing the national anthem require the same protocol. I guess that the event where I was today when the national anthem was song with perhaps a few people putting their hands over their hearts made us all unpatriotic in the eyes of the "super-patriots." At least we seemed to know the words. :))

Posted by: earl.chappell | February 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

hey bnw, i sympathize with wondering if anyone ever really reads these things, but i did and if you want a direct response. no we are not sheep; do not believe unequivocally in everything said by Obama and do not believe he's a messiah. just the best hope for something different coming down the pipe. there are significant differences in his approach to health care, beginning with the issue of the mandated care. there are significant difference in foreign policy, beginning with issue of engagement. you got me on the false profit thing, though. somebody is paying attention. it's just that there's so much crap flying around it's hard to discern somtimes. and btw, do you really think HRC isn't trying to cash in some of Bill's "rock star" status? not the only one running on charisma here.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

For a positive campaign and a fresh, untainted start, we choose Obama. For those who want to brutalize a 12 year old rape victim in court, there's always Hillary.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 24, 2008 07:45 PM

News flash Obama cultists don't believe in US court system. They are just like Rove. I don't know about the story but that is not the point / accusations = guilt. Please after bashing Hillery in the most sexist way don't start on we have to defend the women shtick.

Obama does and does not think Hillery was a co-president. I think both sides are guilty on that one. But reports are she was not that crazy about NFTA at the time. Obama is for whatever the people the room are for. Unless they are Weathermen - no I will not be that pathetic.

Posted by: mul | February 24, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

I thought I'd been taught as a child that members of the military saluted the flag during the National Anthem, and civilians put hand over heart. Of course, few civilians do that 100% of the time they hear the anthem.

But I just now read the official 1942 Code for the National Anthem, and it specifies only that civilians should adopt a respectful stance, and face either the flag, or the person leading the anthem (the anthem is always introduced by someone - "Please stand while we sing the National Anthem..."). Outdoors, men should remove their hats (remember, written in 1942).

It's really a stretch to attack Obama for a photo in which he isn't putting his hand over his heart. I'd have to agree it's silly season.

Posted by: hitpoints | February 24, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is like a cat. You throw him in the air and he always manages to land on his feet. He is just too smooth and that ultimately will be why he will not be our next President. There are 9 months till the general election and people will tire of his rhetoric or maybe he'll just run out of come backs.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 24, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Then thank god for that, bnw. It's not that liberals have been put up and lost, it's that they never made the case for their liberalism . We finally have who can.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: carlsonchafTo the person trying to rally the "Clintonites" to bring down the false "profit" Obama. first of all, do you realize the inherent insult you're paying your own side? Clinton has cultivated a cult of personality from the begining, trying to cash in "rock star" Bill's reputation for turning a phrase. Second, I don't
___________________________________________

I take it you don't question what i wrote? Why ignore the subject. I've posted this on 4 strands today. First two I used prophet and second two I used profit. Used Clinton supporters instead of Clintonites except this one. I knew if I made a mistake you would catch that. Now I know you read my post. You point out my mistakes but avoided the message You know every word is true. Thanks for reading any way. Maybe you be a blind sheep.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey cowboy, the first guy that got "swift-boated" by Karl Rove was McCain. Don't you remember 2000.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Now Clinton is being bashed for defending a rapist. Does anyone out there know that the job of an attorney is to defend their client. Ask the Attorneys that defended OJ what they think.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 24, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader is back to remind voters just how far corporate influence has distanced the major party candidates from problems and solutions people in the street talk about- credit card debt slavery, need for a living wage, health care which cuts out the insurance industry,etc. As he did in 2000 and 2004, he will offer Obama the chance to grab these issues and win. That has always been the job of a third party candidate and that is why he is so distained by professional players.Without Nader, nobody will mention what is left out of the debate. Nader refuses to play the game and those truly disenfranchised by that game love him for it.

Posted by: steveconn | February 24, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

You make a fundamental mistake when you accuse Obama supporters of only wanting to bash Hillary Clinton. We just don't like her politics, ok? she does have a record to run on and it doesn't look very good from where we stand.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm telling ya, you Obama Followers you are being set up. their are a bunch of the old Swift Boaters on these comment pages that are running Hillary down and pumping Obama up but come next Nov. they will vote for McCain

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

It's out now. McCain isn't denying an affair with a female lobbyist, and hs'e not admitting to it either. Most of his campaign staff consist of lobbyists. Then there is his membership in the "Keating 5" for which he should be in jail.

McCain is just another Bush.

By the way kevinlarmee, why aren't the Bush twins and Cheney's daughters in Iraq? This is the war that both of their daddys' started.

Posted by: camera_eye_1 | February 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Since when is putting one's hand over one's heart a part of singing the national anthem? Saying the pledge to the flag requires it. I am afraid that the "super-patriots" among us are now using this as a means of determining our patriotism. Like flying flags on cars, dressing in flags, and so forth. When have we gone too far?

Posted by: earl.chappell | February 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

On this forum it is extremely clear that the so called Obama supporters' only interest is bashing the former first lady. There is no sign of wanting for change on these coward's mind whatsoever.

Obama deserve more scrutiny before people could understand where he would lead the country. Just an example, if people knew that 80 year old Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, another cold war icon from the 70's, once worked as national security adviser under the worst democratic president in recent history, is advising Obama on foreign policy, you would have some idea where this country will be going internationally under an Obama administration.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

What "Change" Obama brought in 3 years of his US Senate Career ... that he is capable of solving the world's problems ... being in the WH ...Explain ... Mr. Empty Suit ...

Posted by: keshav_vedati | February 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: PastorGene |Has anyone noticed how it's a little early for McCain and the Republicans to be already going on the attack full force against Obama? That phase of the general election usually starts much later.
----------------------------------------

Old Man McCain will slap that arrogance off you in a New York minute. Obama will be the most liberal, weakkneed wuss on the planet by Nov. I'm going to sit back and laugh and post I told you so's. 2004. An inept incompetant incumbunt with a 30percent approval rating running against a liberal war hero. 70 percent of Americans disproved of the war. Guess what. The Libs screww us Dems again. Guess what. They are going to do it again. What a shame.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

svreader's remark about Obama's boxing metaphor and violence against women is one of the most inane remarks I have seen in political commentary. I heard Obama's comments Saturday. I don't believe he even used the term "knock out." He only said that the challenger does not win on points. The "knock out" would only be alluded to. And he clearly was using a sports metaphor merely to make the point that he is still the challenger trying to defeat an entrenched opponent--that the race for the nomination, in other words, is far from over, and his task is daunting.

It's a sports metaphor about winning and losing. To turn that into some kind of statement of violence is absurd to the point of disbelief. It is truly "grasping at straws." Obama said it right in the last debate when he said that the campaign has reached a silly stage. Hillary Clinton is desparately behind, and she and her supporters are trying all manner of desparate attacks on Obama in order to try to make up ground. I certainly hope it all backfires.

Obama does appear very presidential in calmly addressing the facts, while Hillary orchestrates a "flying off the handle" moment about fliers that are not new but have been around for weeks. She is the one who chose to highlight her mandated coverage as what distinguishes her plan from Obama's. What does a mandate mean, if not that it will be enforced? And Hillary wants to claim all the good from Bill Clinton's presidency. Well, if she wants credit for his accomplishments, she has to take the whole package, and Bill Clinton is the one who signed NAFTA into law. There is no way she can deny that.

For any Latinos paying attention, Bill Clinton also signed into law in 1996 the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), a very harsh immigration bill that made life that much harder for undocumented immigrants. I think Obama should be pointing that out as well.

Posted by: PastorGene | February 24, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

To the person trying to rally the "Clintonites" to bring down the false "profit" Obama. first of all, do you realize the inherent insult you're paying your own side? Clinton has cultivated a cult of personality from the begining, trying to cash in "rock star" Bill's reputation for turning a phrase. Second, I don't understand the abject fear some Americans display to Obama being a good speaker. That doesn't mean we are blindly following him, it just means we see a glimmer of hope that there might be a real leader there. Give up on the "drink the koolaid rap." we know what we're buying and it's not a false prophet. It's a man who inspires a bit of hope in sightless world. Give it a chance.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

so ok for Clarence Thomas to rant but not Michelle?

Posted by: williamjohnson1 | February 24, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

At this point Clinton is only doing harm to the Democratic party. Do the right thing Mrs. Clinton... consider the whole rather than your part in it.
Please.

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

George Bush is more like Jim Jones. White evangelic and tried to steal social security

Posted by: williamjohnson1 | February 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

SVReader: I keep trying to find out why you are getting so much attention on this board. Must have been something you said. "Just words?"

You missed yesterday when I was visciously attacked on another WP board. Terrible accusations - one even said Hitler was among my group of friends. And, even worse, she claimed I was a Republican. lol.

After watching the Black Union conference all day yesterday, when everyone there was so angry and let the fur fly so-to-speak, and then ushering out all the black speakers before Hillary was invited on stage, it was quite a day. I felt like I needed body armor.

Michelle Obama is getting clobbered on the blogs for her saying she was never proud of this country her entire adult life.

Now, they are publishing her thesis from college - where she is very angry at the white professors and students at the college. (The college isn't going to release their copy until Nov. 5th, 2008). Wonder why !

Instead of embracing the opportunity to go to such a prestigious school, she writes a 25 page thesis about racial injustice at the school.

She felt that they didn't want her there. If they didn't want her there - she wouldn't have been there.

I say she needs to quit whining and portraying herself as a victim, just like Barack does and appreciate her good fortunes, not take the bridge to the past and be so angry, hateful and negative.

Anyway, today seems like your day. r u o.k.? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

That picture of the national anthem was floated on the Internet 6 months ago, described as the Pledge of Allegiance despite the notation that it was the NATIONAL ANTHEM. LOL... Morons. Most people do NOT place their hand over their heart when singing the National Anthem and everyone knows it!

Hillary is so stinking condescending it's pathetic. She is obviously desperate but is more likely simply emphasizing that she is a B..ch, and a spoiled brat to boot. (She really needs a voice coach.) "Meet me in Ohio..." to "debate...your behavior..."? Who is she, Obama's mother? Spare us. The debate is already set, Sport, and you ain't Obama's mother!

Nader whines every 4 years, but where is he when the fighting is being done, figuratively and literatlly. Not a peep outa him. He has delusions of grandeur.

Last, but not least, the apparel Police are after him!? That's too stupid to even comment on.

Posted by: michael4 | February 24, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

The entire article by Alec was to provide Ohama a forum to campaign. Alec is in bed with Obama along with Chris. 35% of the Democrats in Florida will vote for McCain rather than Obama. The media is electing a Republican with their trashing of Hillary and their support of everything Obama.

Posted by: Jcarn53 | February 24, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

.
A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:


WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?


Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but always expect other parents' children to die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????
.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

To Whom It May or May Not Concern: I NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER place my hand over my heart when OTHERS sing the National Anthem. By placing my hand over my heart, does it pay my bills, send my child to college, put food on my table, help pay for gas for my car, help me pay for my doctors bills, help me take care of my aging parents. Who are these sick, ill lead people to speak about this anyway. These are the same people from the right that feel their way of thinking is the only way someone should live. I AM SOOOOOOOOO SICK OF THEM AND THIS CRAP! I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR ONE OF YOU!!!!!EVER...I THINK ALL OF YOU ARE EVIL!!!!!Will someone please put them out of their misery!!! Obama is catching it from all fronts because Obama will stand the test of time!!! I dare anyone, and I mean any one to question my patriotism to this country..

Posted by: AUV7429 | February 24, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm very impressed by Obama's reaction to all this. He's to the point, but doesn't trash anyone. Much like the trees blocking the forest, it's been hard for me to see the Barack outside the noise of the followers (especially here in the forums). I'd probably have a better opinion of him if I had stayed away from reading the WaPo reader comments.

Posted by: hitpoints | February 24, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

false profit?

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004:

Did you by chance mistakenly address your response to Fairlington Blade instead of me?

FYI, I'm a 59-year-old white male. And your racist, intolerant and ignorant postings are offensive to me.

Posted by: jac13 | February 24, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has attacked, Obama hasn't. Yeah Right. Man of great words. The media's drawers were in a wad because he had taken the "high road" and had hamstrung himself. Remember Obamanites? Everybody was cordial up to MSNBC debate. Every reporter was complai ning because they wanted blood. Remember Obamanites? Come debate night, old high integrity interviewer Russart sicced and Old Edwards and Old Above the Fray Obama bit. Remember Obamanites? Question her honesty and integrity on special interest (guess who is going special interest, we hear today) and I can't remember all accusations, but their were more. Remember Obamanites? No Obama hasn't changed. He wasn't above the fray from the beginning. A false profit with words, but no substance. You know now why we call you Obamanites. Sheep following a false profit. You damn right I remember that night. It made me sick. Know why? I had real hope that the dems could go through the primaries without damage to each other. Don't blame Hillary. I'll never forget the look on her face that night. She never suspected they would do that. She expected better and deserved better. Remember Obamanites? Been wanting to get that of my chest for a while. Go back to your false profit, Obamanites. Dare you to question anything I said as untrue.
You know who started this bashing. Other Clintonites help me give them hell on this. I'm tired of the Obamanite lies>

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

bhatttt - Nader isn't running as a Green. He took his marbles with him and sulked home in the last election. In Nader's world, if you don't agree with EVERY thing he says, you've been bought and paid for. Me too, I guess.

Fortunately, his is a geometrical progression. 2.7% in 2000. 0.38% in 2004. So, I'm figuring about 0.05% in 2008. Utterly inconsequential.

I'm deeply disappointed in Tim Russert for giving such an irrelevant individual 20 minutes this morning. One might as well as give the time to Lola Falani.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed how it's a little early for McCain and the Republicans to be already going on the attack full force against Obama? That phase of the general election usually starts much later.

It seems obvious that they are trying to influence the outcome of the race for the Democratic nomination. They want to run against Hillary Clinton. So they are trying to help her take Obama out now.

Nader is now joining in to help them also. I, too, respect the work that Nader has done for consumers, the environment, etc., in the past. However, ever since 2000 he seems to be helping the Republicans, which makes me wonder about his motives. He did try to say there was no difference between Gore and Bush, which was and is ludicrous. He drew just enough votes in 2000 in some key places (Florida and New Hampshire at least) to throw the election from Gore to Bush. He got less votes in 2004 then in 2000. He cannot believe he will be elected. And based on issues and constituencies, he obviously draws votes away from the Democratic candidate, thus helping the Republican, and thus hurting the very causes he says he supports. Why does he continue to do this? Is he in league with (on the payroll of) the Republicans? Or is it an ego thing? It is just not credible that he either believes he can win or is trying to raise consciousness about any particular issues, since there can't be more than a hair's difference on the issues between him and Gore/ Kerry/ Obama or Clinton. Or is he also trying to influence the Democratic race?

Hopefully, they will not succeed in influencing the Democratic race, and Obama will emerge as the nominee and battle-tested for the general election campaign.

Posted by: PastorGene | February 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama's commitment to meet with the leaders countries in the middle east is the first sane suggestion i've heard regarding foreign policy in quite some time. You're just plain wrong to think this means giving anything away in negotiation. It means facing a reality that hasn't been acknowledged by our current administration in eight years; these people are in charge of their countries and we're fools not recognize that. It has nothing to do with patriotism or the lack of it.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

i understood what michelle obama was trying to say even though she could
have worded it differently....
i too am experiencing my proudest moment as an american....

we are coming together for a common cause...

of the people, by the people and for the people!....

how could we be proud of our country after the Katrina disaster
overwhelmed us and our president stood by for days without real support
for good american people?... and even now the devastation remains and
people remain homeless...

how could we be proud when we have a president who has continuously
lied to the american people about weapons of mass destruction, invading
a country that had nothing to do without 911?...meanwhile an innocent
country has been destroyed and thousands have been killed...

how could we be proud of this country in the past when we do nothing
about the drug problems that have infested our communities, meanwhile
we are making deals with leaders of the countries that are producing &
smuggling the drugs in!...

how could we possibly be proud of this country when we currently have a
president that has let the country spiral into trillion dollar
deficit?...

how could we be proud of this country before when we let racism rear
it's ugly head, with individuals who place nooses at schools and public
places?...

how could we be proud of this country when we forget about the good old
fashion values of working hard,& having a steady income to support our
families, if we allow our jobs to go overseas?...

how could we be proud of our country, if we allow financial
institutions to take advantage of innocent people?..the result, record
numbers of home foreclosures...

how could we be proud of our country when we let hollywood and the tv
industry, glamorize filth, smut, and general bloody gore that fills our
airwaves and eventually fills the minds of young impressionable
americans?

how could we be proud of our country before if our leaders perpetuate
divisiveness amongst each other?...

should i go on?

michelle obama is proud of the fact that she sees an america that truly
wants change in each other and in our country with everyone working
together for the common good and a common cause! as opposed to the
large corporations, drug companies, and politicians slamming us with the
idea of what is good for America!

Posted by: docdwb | February 24, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - you cite a rather dubious poll. Quoting from the link you posted:

"They say that they carefully selected the demographic compositions used in their polls. Most pollsters thus far have not been fully representing the support Barack Obama gets at the polls because the demographic composition of those going out to the polls tend to be under-represented in traditional polling based on previous turnout."

In other words, the pollster has deliberately skewed the poll to reflect his/her view of why Obama has been winning. A risky gambit and perhaps one that will pay off. However, the methodology is speculative at best.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

WOW...
seems it is not a new news ,many friends public this news on a tall dating site~~~~Tallmingle.com~~~~which has many other good projects but dating
But a good news.lol...
~~~~~~Selina1987,as a model playing that site,hope to know you.

Posted by: datelover24 | February 24, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

HELLO? IS ANYBODY AT THE WASHINGTON POST MONITORING THIS BOARD? IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT SOME POSTERS ARE POSTING THE SAME MESSAGES SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THE RACISM AND INTOLERANCE OF SOME (e.g. "ebubuk2004)" SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.

Posted by: jac13 | February 24, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Let me quote some of what Obama said at an event back in mid of January in SC:

"I said early in this campaign I would meet not just with friends, but with enemies. People said, 'you can't do that.' Senator Clinton said, that would be naïve, that would be irresponsible.' The Obama quoted what JFK said, 'you should never negotiate out of fear, but you should never fear to negotiate.' [Sen. Obama remarks in Florence, SC, 1/25/07]

Below I quote the response to his above statement:

Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for pre-committing to a personal meeting in his first year with "with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." That is false. She never said that a president should only meet with America's friends. She also promised vigorous diplomatic efforts with all countries, friend and foe.

JFK made clear in his debate with Nixon that he would not "meet Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level - foreign ministers or ambassadors -- which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of success."

So, Obama was saying that we, the Americans are afraid to those countries?

Now I understand why people say that Obama is not patriotic.

In fact, the only fear that the America has now is if Obama is being nominated.

Posted by: gvz335 | February 24, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Re: Questions about patriotism. This is just a prelude to questioning his ability to act as Commander in Chief during a time of war. Anyone who grew up in or around the military knows that there are certain ceremonial protocols that one follows any time our National Anthem is played or we are honoring the flag. For example, my father worked for the US Government and we lived outside a military base in Japan for a few years. The national anthem would play on the Base at 5:00 every evening as they lowered the flag. When that happened the entire Base would come to a standstill while we honored our country. Living overseas, especially around the military, helps keep one from taking our democracy and our rights for granted.

Posted by: BecJensen1 | February 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

You can't trash Hillary Clinton for fulfilling her duty as court appointed counsel. A lot of other things, but not that. It must have felt repugnant to her and I don't know enough about the trial to judge, but she was obligated to fulfill her duty to her client. Our system is based on that.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Did Alec MacGillis see the same clip I did before writing his piece (Obama) Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War and saying, "So far, at least, Obama is showing that he can stand his ground and return fire on all fronts." In that clip from an interview with Tim Russert. What I saw was Barack Obama struck nearly speechless by the announcement of Ralph Nader running for president again. Before he could barely mutter an almost unintelligible answer, "Um, he (Nader) clearly uh thinks a lot of his own work," ever so slightly, his chin began to tremble. If this man, who is being hailed by his apostles as the new Moses who can lead us all out of the wilderness, let's his knees start to buckle at news that has been expected for days, what the hell is he going to do when John McCain lights into him - pee his pants? Or maybe just faint.

Posted by: woodbriar | February 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect when Hillary lead pollster owns the firm that John McCain's lead spokeperson works for....

in is incestuous...

Obama needs the kitchen sink thrown at him just to get ready for when he is the nominee...

Posted by: onwaj6 | February 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama clearly is dimwit corporate democrat to suggest that what Nader said was wrong. Gore and Bush were the same and the democrats proved it. The Democrats gave permission for war. Does Obama not remember that. Obviously, he's in bed with Exelon and Rezko so he didn't really notice. Corporate sell out!

It's time to end the Democrat-Republican monachy.

Vote Greens!
Vote Nader!

Posted by: bhatttt | February 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Attacked on 3 fronts and he handled himself marvelously. I particularly love the comment to republican: After the way they treat American soldiers when they are on the battle field and when they return home they are one to be talking about patriotism.

This is why Obama can handle the republicans inspite of what some claim. His response is both sarcastic and intellectually superior. He doesnt have to get down and dirty to fight them. He can stay clean and do so.

So glad he is not falling for Senator Clintons obvious political ploy. She was honored to be with him and now she is practically accusing him of swiftboating her. She wants to show voters see I was nice to him at the debate I reached out and what does he do he bit my hand off the next day. I dont know who she thinks she is fooling with that oldest trick in the book. Those mailers were going out for a while am I seriously suppose to believe that today was the first time that HIllary saw them. Yes and I believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

When Clintons are desperate it aint pretty.

Carol

Posted by: harriscrl3 | February 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

senator obama must be a person of substance...

he has 3 people attacking him at once, and seemed to answer back in a fair, strong and responsive manner...

he looks, talks, and acts like a good leader to me!

we all know that nader is a loser and is only in the race to detract votes...

the republicans don't have a right to talk about anyone's patriotism because of the way they have treated our veterans after returning from the war...or the way they treated good red-blooded americans by leaving them stranded in the katrina disaster...

and what can we say about the double talk of the clintons...

she wants to add her 12 years as the governer's wife and 8 years as the president's wife as real experience...well hillary, your husband signed the NAFTA Bill and you supported it...now you want to put a freeze on it when you are running for office... please!

let's stop the drama and vote obama!

Posted by: docdwb | February 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

It is despicable to aim for the lowest common denominator in attacking anyone of the presidential candidates in the most personal ways. That's basically what is happening on discussion boards like this one but also in the media in general.
It is fine to scrutinize the respective records and agendas of candidates but attempts to demonize any one of them are out of bounce. Public discourse is useful only if there is a certain threshold of civility.
http:www.reflectivepundit.com

Posted by: bn1123 | February 24, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

it is not surprising that the GOP will try to smear a rival about symbolic gestures and clumbsy words from a candidate's spouse...


it seems, surprise! obama can hold his ground, and has good rejoinders for all ready to challenge topdog.

ralph is right to run, though: make obama think about running too centrist a la clinton. and NOT becoming indebted to those who "get one into office" will be a problem obama is facing as he courts superdelegates.


if mccain self-implodes as it seems possible...

Posted by: forestbloggod | February 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that post-Clinton the political diviseness of this country both polarized and paralyzed solutions.

Now it appears that the Clintons are doing the same to the Democratic Party. The Clinton's appear to feel their dynasty and entitlements are not meeting with voter support so the resorting to anger and sarcasm are only meant to continue their legacy of diviseness. And that truly is a shame as prior the past few weeks Bill Clinton had established himself as a statesman.

Posted by: Keith_Hunter | February 24, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Fiddlesticks! I'm feeling really suckered lately. After the last debate I was actually feeling sympathetic towards Senator Clinton. But then she showed up on national television raising her voice to the point of yelling. This demonstrated an emotional state, not to mention 2 bouts of verging on tears, that a primary election is suppose to weed out for Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Then I noticed a recently published article where Senator Clinton aggressively, actually viciously, crossed examined a 12 year old victim of rape. Well, I'm truly ashamed of myself for being emotionally bamboozled by Senator Clinton's campaign. I'm so thrown off in fact that if she wins the nomination, I will root for Ralph Nader - and I don't even like Ralph Nader!

Rape case I am referring to is


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story


Posted by: woody21 | February 24, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

What I can tell is she did her defense well as a court-appointed attorney. That is what an attorney should been doing.

Being the fighter of the children doesn't mean that she had to ignore her professionalism. Put the right thing on the right place.
The judge and the jury are the people who decide; the attorney just shows the available records or evidence.

Posted by: gvz335 | February 24, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"First They Ignore You" - early polls showed Obama behind by 20+ points in most states. He had no infrastructure and Clinton had the machine. Maybe in the future, they all said.

"Then They Laugh at You" - Hope is an empty message. You need experience and what about all those chants of "Yes We Can."

"Then They Fight You" - Obama is not running a fair campaign? Clinton will have a strong "firewall" in Texas and Ohio. And how dare Obama publish brochures explaining the difference between the health plans and telling people that I supported NAFTA. It's not fair!!

"Then You Win." - March 4th.

- Quote by Ghandi, Inspiration by Obama

http://www.youtube.com/user/comingawakening/

(c) Coming Awakening

Posted by: comingawakening | February 24, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Vote Nader!

Ralph Nader=intelligent change.

I am tired of the two party system and the corporate lackey candidates like Obama and McCain.

Vote true progressive!
Vote Nader!

Posted by: bhatttt | February 24, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

we're still waiting for that list of Hillary's accomplishments. We've been waiting more than a week now but you seem to not be able to produce such a list.

Posted by: KAM3
__________________________________________

How about NAFTA (Didn't work too well)Would like to have that back. Thought good Idea at time. Be patient. How about welfare reform, great job marker, Lower poverty, more and better health care,
great housing market, better college financing, lower taxes, more affordable housing etc. etc. etc. Should I go on.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Hate is not a Democratic value!
In 2000 and 2004 I never experienced the severity of hate attitude & mail as I have experienced from Obama suporters for simply choosing who I think is the better candidate.

In 2000 I liked Gephardt, in 2004 I liked Dean, in 2007 I like Clinton.

If this hate rhetoric continues, I will be one of the many exiting the Democratic party to make room for old and new hate voters.

There are gains and there are losses to such intraparty bashing.

Join me this summer as an independent voter!

Posted by: globe_scout | February 24, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I find the Washington Post comments, in which posters are permitted to rpeat the same posting many times, unpleasantly boring and repewtitious, not instructive. (You who do that know who you are, on both sides ... though I must admit there is a preponderance of that activity on one side.) Try doing that at the NYTimes and your posts will not appear.

What's interested me here is the reference to a website that the poster notes will loead any conservative or Republican to not vote for Obama -- his Illinois record. The website is one that claims to be "Leading the Conservative Movement * Since 1944". I don't trust the website, given that claim, but the votes are extremely appealing to this liberal who, albeit aged in his 60s, could handle some fresh ideas in Washington and in how we present ourselves to the world. Check it out:

Posted by: pbmeyer | February 24, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Go get em Barack. Let them fling all the mud in the world. it does not stick to people of integrity and character like yourself. Judgment is what it is about and getting the past of W. the hell away from us as quick as possible

A bright future is in store from America and Barack Obama will lead the way with us the American people finally being truly heard.

Barack And roll in 2008..

Posted by: pedraza1 | February 24, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

What utter scum these Republicans are. A party of draft dodgers and torture artists who desecrate the flag every time they mention it or wear one of these flag lapel pins. They should be horsewhipped.

Posted by: mnjam |

--------------------------------------------
Must be one of those bring civility back to Washington, do away with Rovian politics, work across the isle, an no more politics as usual Obamanites. Bless their hearts. Aren't they the sweetest things.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 24, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Re: ebubuk

Exactly how many times does one have to post the same thing over and over again (AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER), before posts get deleted?

I wrote this before reading down to the bottom and finding an overtly racist post from this individual. Time for somebody to be booted off the board.

Re: svreader

It's a tough world and you have strident opinions. Fortunately (from my perspective) you represent only a small fraction of Sen. Clinton's support. And I've been a Clinton supporter almost from the beginning. I think she would be a more effective president than Obama, but I think he has greater potential to change the game. I don't think we can afford the risk, though nominating Clinton has risks in losing to McCain.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 24, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's "plagiarizing" the re-election campaign of NYC Mayor Robert Wagner some 50 years ago when he ran against his own record - and won!  Don't think Hillary can pull the same thing off, though.  What will she do next, accuse Obama of stealing furniture and other items from The White House?

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Svreader, we're still waiting for that list of Hillary's accomplishments. We've been waiting more than a week now but you seem to not be able to produce such a list.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 24, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

There's always lots of talk at election time about "uniting the party," this year, the pleas come from the Democratic side. The way I see it, for a long time, there have really been four political parties in the U.S.: the Extreme Religious Right, the Economic Right, the Economic Left, and the Extreme Ideological Left. Our system seems to be arranged to nurture the extremes. Maybe a multi-party system would provide more equal power-sharing, I'm not expecting an institutional change like that anytime soon. But I see no reason to continue blind support for any group if it no longer serves my needs.

In the meantime, I consider myself part of the pragmatic Economic Left, and I'm tired of "uniting" behind good politicians who become ineffective leaders. My memory goes back several decades on this subject. I believe Hillary and Bill were and are the best hope this country has to bring real equality and justice to all; I'm not going to vote a "second choice" any more. I believe Obama's mysterious preacher-like tactics are an attempt to obscure his real agenda, which I strongly disagree with. If he wins the Democratic nomination, on that day I (a lifelong Democrat) will change my party affiliation to Independent and write in Hillary on election day.

I support people, principles, and ideas, not "parties." When a party stops serving my needs, I see no reason to keep it on artificial life support.


Posted by: davidz | February 24, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004

- get some fresh air; get a life. :-)

Posted by: wethepeople2 | February 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Folks, Those of you who are Democrats need to stop worrying about Hillary vs. Barack. It's pretty clear the Republicans are ready to try to run on their old patriotism argument, and even in a more ridiculous fashion than usual.

Try to remember that the attacks between Hillary and Barack are just politics, but going after someone's patriotism on absurd grounds truly hurts and divides our country for the long term.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

grimix --

People from the Washington Post monitor these boards.

You are in violation against post rules aginst personal attacks against other readers.

I don't attack you personaly.

Please don't attack me either.

I've got just as much right to my opinions as you do!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

I wish you would stop cluttering this blog with your predictable, knee-jerk, ignorant anti-Obama blather.

Why don't you talk about your candidate's positive attributes -- and I do agree that Hillary has some, unlike your attitude towards her opponent -- instead of slandering Obama? Any moron knows that his use of the term "knockout" -- which was also used in many descriptions of the debate ("no knockout for Clinton") -- was figurative.

As for ensuring a McCain win, it is people who form their opinions based on what a candidate's supporters say about the opponent on the web, and who threaten to stay home rather than vote for the Democratic nominee, if it wasn't their choice -- they will ensure a GOP victory, and at least 4 more years of Bush's tragic Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, and right-wing judicial appointments.

Posted by: jac13 | February 24, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

svreader, remember you said you sent a check for McCain in my honor, so how much of a "hard core Democrat" are you again? Talk about distortion of records and doublespeak!

Hillary keeps talking a whole bunch of angry words and making herself look bad. It just motivated me to send more money to the Obama campaign!

Posted by: meldupree | February 24, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has 100 % of my respect for Being human enough to standup against war. It takes a good person to be contravercial (sp.)when death and distruction was known to happen to our beautiful children when sent to fight a horrilbe war in a land where temperatures reach 130 degrees on a hostile desert climate and roadside bombs and enimies carry american made weapons. Thank you dear God for the kind heart.

Posted by: bdrevers | February 24, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

The Rethugs will use every dirty campaign trick to impugn Obama - this patriotism thing is just the tip of the iceberg. Normally, I would be writing with burning rage about the dirty tactics of Rethugs. But I believe Obama deserves everything he will beget, for the slimy manner in which he and his minions and paid lapdogs in the media such as Colby, RObinson, Gerson, Rich, etal went after the Clintons. So, this fall, as the Rethugs and their swiftboaters hit Obama below the belt, and as the new Obama democrats begin peeling away and return to the Rethug fold, I will thinking Amen.

Sure, the country will suffer and we will have Ginsburg and Stevens replaced by Thomas and Alito clones, but that is what the democrats deserve for desecrating the Clintons in such a disgraceful manner.

Posted by: intcamd1 | February 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

SVReader, Clinton is hitting hard, so you're hitting hard, Obama's hitting back hard, so I'm hitting back hard. It's a tough election. Like I said last year all of the Clinton supporters were arguing that Obama couldn't take the heat and so he would get rolled. Now they're upset that he's winning and handles Clinton's/McCain's/Nader's attacks with aplomb.

I want to ask, who went up with misleading mailers starting in NH? Who distorted Obama's state senate record and position on the war? Whose surrogates got out of control with the drug/muslim/race stuff? Point out one instance, just one, where Obama has actually distorted Clinton's position or behavior rather than hitting her for it hard and fair.

You should be glad that we ain't gonna get swiftboated again, with either Clinton or Obama as the nominee. I tend to think Obama's flip response style is much more effective though, it reminds me of Reagan!

Posted by: Nissl | February 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004,

Just curious if you really are just a monkey pounding away on the keyboard.

Your irrational and outlandish comments indicate you have bananas on the brain.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

FIVE WORDS...

Patriotism Got Us Into Iraq!

~

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

"Please tell me one "scandal" for which Hillary Clinton was not exonerated. One."

The missing billing records.

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

svreader --

Stop trying to force Obama supporters off this board.
We're in the majority to stay and we've got as much right to our correct opinions as you do of your wrong opinions.

Why do HillBilly Mudslinger supporters hate free speech???

What is svreader afraid of???

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 24, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama's wife may have only begun to feel proud that she is an American after her husband became a candidate for President but the amount and nature of the demonization of Sen. Clinton by Sen. Obama and his supporters has done anything but make me feel proud to be and American. Sen. Obama cannot separate himself from what his campaign managers are supporting and encouraging. A presidental campaign is not supposed to be a contest determined by which candidate ran the filthiest campaign. There is a distinct Rovian odor attached to Sen. Obama's campaign.

Posted by: marrobcastle | February 24, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

You have a lot of nerve making baseless accusations. Why are you such a Karl Rove mudslinging hypocrite?

Why do you keep on posting HillBilly Mudslinging talking points?

How much does HillBilly pay you for posting here?

How do you like being accused of things?

You are turning loyal Democrats against Obama by constantly trying to squash free speech.

If you represent the HillBilly Mudslingers, I want nothing to do with them!

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 24, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

bldlcc --

Stop trying to force me off this board.
I've got as much right to my opinions as you do.

Why do Obama supporters hate free speech???

What are they afraid of???

Posted by: svreader | February 24, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

badger3 --

They can't, won't, and never intended to.

Posted by: svreader | February 24, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 24, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

sv..., sv.., sv...! A penny for your moribund thoughts, eh?

It is your brand of hyper partisan, 'my way or no way' politricks, that we who choose to exercise our God-given cognitive faculties berift of liberal group think dogmatic exhortations have come to abhour.

Bury the tyranny; and, please cease the hate; just participate! B

Posted by: bldlcc | February 24, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

They can attack Obama all they want, he is clearly in the lead:

'Obama Ahead of Clinton 14% in Texas, Up 8% in Ohio'

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/decision-analyst-obama-texas-ohio-mccain-022308005.html

Clinton is doomed. She will not be able to gather enough delegates after losing Texas and Ohio. Worse yet for the HillBilly mudslingers, more super delegates previously pledged to the Clintoons are switching to Obama.

We already know Obama would beat McCain and his 59 lobbyists in November.

As far as Nader is concerned, he can be rendered moot if Obama picks from two highly regarded Democrats in Washington who are much more attractive to the "green" voters.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | February 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Nissl --

Why do you keep on posting Obama talking points?

How much does Obama pay you for posting here?

How do you like being accused of things?

You are turning loyal Democrats against Obama by constantly trying to squash free speech.

If you represent Obama, I want nothing to do with him!

Posted by: svreader | February 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's a link that outlines Obama's voting record in Illinois. After reading it, my question is...how could any true Republican or even moderate Independent vote for this guy?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18967

Posted by: badger3 | February 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I am impressed. Good job, Barack. It has an air of Reagan to it, the ability to gracefully flick off attacks in a way that makes the attacker look childish and petty.

Posted by: grimmix | February 24, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs attention, is it Hillary? I feel Hillary is venting all her anger and disappointment at the wrong fellow. That said she flip flops too. One minute she is nice the next rattle rattle rage and toil. Sometimes I can only imagine it is like being attached by a three headed Dragon. It you hold a shield up Obama you may maintain your own intergrity. Keep yourself off the tracks and on higher ground.

Posted by: bdrevers | February 24, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

You know, "truthdigger," "svreader," and "ebubuk," spamming your various candidates' talking points on every single thread, usually multiple times on a single thread, doesn't exactly convince anyone of anything.

Good backbone by Obama, and he will stand up like this day in and day out until the nomination is decided, and then again until November if he is the nominee, and then again for 4 years if he wins the general election. This time last year I was arguing with people on this board who were sure he was a naive softie who'd melt under the attacks of the right/attacks of the left/Clinton machine. Now everyone's pretending upset that he's tough and capable of playing hardball when he gets attacked. Figures.

Posted by: Nissl | February 24, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Interesting thesis. Of course, the Letterman writers went back to work *before* the Iowa caucuses, so that's all it is -- a thesis. Or do you believe Letterman was suckered by Obama, too?

Posted by: oilhistorian | February 24, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I like Obama's reasoned responses to Nader, Clinton and McCain. No hissy-fits. No tears. No wild surrogate wagging his finger in the faces of anyone who dares oppose him. How any of these attacks against Obama furthers discussion about the policies Americans are concerned about, I'll never know. I'm sorry Obama is being dragged into politics as usual from the status-quo old guard. The sooner they bow out of the race, the better. Obama '08.

Posted by: Seneca7 | February 24, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh please!!! Barack get good night's sleep tonight.

No one is patriotic enough for the armchair warriors of the far right. They've trashed McCain, Kerry and Cleland, men who actually fought with honor and heroism. They'd probably laud Joseph Goebbels as a true patriot for following any order, even those given by a mad man. Just mock them as they deserve to be mocked.

News flash-- Clinton is attacking you!!! Send her a thank you note. What doesn't destroy you, makes you stronger.

And now a narcissist, who is as responsible for the Bush years as Bush himself, is running. If you can't defend yourself against Ralph Nader, you probably don't deserve to be President.

Honey, you hit the trifecta of American idiocy this weekend--CELEBRATE!!! They've given you a lot of material to work with, you just have to be smart enough to use it.

Posted by: mhitchons | February 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

he should be able to withstand the verbal flack as he is 'all' rhetoric...
I'm sure the words just bounce off him, he is good at that!
Thank you.

Posted by: strycharz7494 | February 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader, still scraping the bottom of the barrel, I see. hrc will not be the nominee with her temper tantrums.

Posted by: meldupree | February 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Calling Nader Harold Stassen is an insult to Stassen.

Ralph Nader has blood on his hands. Lots of blood.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 24, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hasn't Co-President Clinton already served her two terms?

And Obama is so right about Ralph Nader, the Harold Stassen of our times... 3 runs down 17 more to tie Stassen record. Of course Ralph got a late start, but if longevity is on his side... he just might break Stassen's 20-run streak.

Posted by: jade_7243 | February 24, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Someone on this board wrote: If the Clintonites keep sarcastically referring to Barack Obama as "the Messiah," I assume it is fair game--given all their financial scandals past, present and to come--to refer to the Clintons as "the Profits" ...

Please tell me one "scandal" for which Hillary Clinton was not exonerated. One.

Posted by: monk4hall | February 24, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Bravo Ralph Nader.

If Clinton does not gain the nomination, VOTE NADER. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

CLINTON SUPPORTERS: VOTE NADER


Bravo Ralph Nader.

If Clinton does not gain the nomination, VOTE NADER. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

CLINTON SUPPORTERS: VOTE NADER


Bravo Ralph Nader.

If Clinton does not gain the nomination, VOTE NADER. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

CLINTON SUPPORTERS: VOTE NADER

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 24, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

So much for those naive people who were betting Hillary would exit with class.

If I were her, taunting the heavens with that line, "The Sky Will Open, The Light Will Come Down," I'd worry a little bit about being turned into a pillar of salt, while looking back to Gomorrah to see Bill.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 24, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

megaduck --

Please don't twist my words.

What I said is that they would have pointed out just how empty his rhetoric is.

I am as hard-core a Democrat as you can find but after the way Obama supporters have treated the Clintons I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

You're going to need our votes and you've not only shut the door, you've nailed it shut!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 24, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

What utter scum these Republicans are. A party of draft dodgers and torture artists who desecrate the flag every time they mention it or wear one of these flag lapel pins. They should be horsewhipped.

Posted by: mnjam | February 24, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA HAS A HIDDEN AGENDA?


The title of Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama's book The Audacity of Hope was taken from a sermon written by Jeremiah Wright, Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.[5] Obama first met Wright and joined his church while he was working as a community organizer prior to attending Harvard Law School. Obama's connection to Wright first drew attention in a February 2007 Rolling Stone article which described a speech in which Wright forcefully spoke about racism against African-Americans.[6] Citing the article and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans of having Wright introduce him at his Presidential announcement. [7]

This only drew further interest into Wright's preaching of Black liberation theology which some conservative critics say promotes "a sort of racial exclusivity".[8] Wright has rejected this notion by saying that "The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history."[9]

During the course of the campaign, Wright has also attracted controversy for his association with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.[10] Wright travelled to Libya with Farrakhan in the 1980s. In 2007, Wright addressed this by saying "When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."[11] In 2007, Trumpet Magazine (published and edited by Wright's daughter) presented the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farrakhan, whom it said "truly epitomized greatness."[12] Wright is quoted in the magazine offering praise of Farrakhan "as one of the 20th and. 21st century giants of the African American religious experience" and also praised Farrakhan's "integrity and honesty."[ In addition, Wright has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism", and that the attacks on 9/11 were a consequence of violent American policies and proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

CBSnews

At a recent Sunday service, following media coverage of Obama's last-minute decision not to have Wright speak at the senator's presidential announcement last month, Wright warned his flock not to believe any reports of a rift between him and the church's best-known member.

"Barack and I are fine," Wright, 65, on an out-of-state trip, said in a recorded message played to about 2,000 attendees. "The press is not to be trusted. ... Don't let somebody outside our camp divide us."

His impassioned comments came after some conservatives questioned Obama's links to Trinity, which embraces what it calls a "Black Value System." Others criticized Obama for appearing to distance himself from the church and its leader.

The roughly 8,000-member church has often championed liberal causes, from gay rights to opposition to the Iraq war. It also emphasizes its African roots and asks parishioners to accept the "Black Value System," which includes tenets such as "commitment to the black family," "dedication to the pursuit of education" and one critics have seized upon - "disavowal of the pursuit of 'middleclassness."'

Obama seemed to preach some of the church's teachings earlier this month at a commemoration of the 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala. He said his generation of blacks needs to strive for something beyond getting "some of that Oprah money" and that "materialism alone will not fulfill the possibilities of your existence."

Posted by: truthdigger | February 24, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I am favorably impressed by the way Obama is responding to these attacks. He confronts the issues in a calm, direct way that effectively addresses the issues. He is not letting people get away with their crap.

Good for Obama.

Posted by: jukeboyjoe | February 24, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

The last 29 years, I am perpetually reminded that I am living among grown up Americans most of whom want to act like little kindergarten boys and boys, with hands over heart and cross my heart and promise to die behavior.

The childishness exhibited among the average American makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

Here, I have escaped a communist regime, in which the government dictates --- in the name of the people --- how I sit, where I sit, what things I can or can not say, how long I have to hold my breath, when I have sing their anthem,,,, to come to a country where THE PEOPLE now dictate to me what kind of a "free government", free society I've joined, and NOW I must put my hands here and there, during some sacred singing, or I am not a good citizen!

The idiocy of mass mentality in both "free" and "dictatorial" societies is staggeringly tremendous, there's just no single adequate word to describe it.

Posted by: HerLao | February 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

For a positive campaign and a fresh, untainted start, we choose Obama. For those who want to brutalize a 12 year old rape victim in court, there's always Hillary.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm for Obama but this rapist thing is just stupid. If Clinton was the court appointed defense attorney it was her job to defend her client. End story.

Svreader? The writers guild would have jumped in and turned the entire campaign around. Man, you're just reaching. I got to tell you, the WaPo forums is a rabid den of imbecility that means nothing on the national stage. The ramblings of lunatics on what amounts to a third rate forum means nothing.

Posted by: Megaduck | February 24, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Nader. MCCain & Hillary represents the past - time to turn those pages.

OBAMA 2008

One cannot go against the will of the people.

Posted by: LAGCII | February 24, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Well, this is good training for Obama. When he gets the nomination & runs for president he's going to get attacked even more.

Everyone is biting at his heels because they know he's winning. And he's going to win in November.

Go Obama!!!

Posted by: alarico | February 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

It's refreshing to see a candidate respond calmly, directly, honestly and firmly to the same old political attacks. There are millions of Americans cheering Obama on because they're tired of the "game" of politics played by insiders that owe their comfortable lives to spinning falsehoods and spewing talking points. It's a cottage industry. Meanwhile, it's sad to watch Hillary compromising the high minded tone she struck at the CNN debate with her cynical, sarcastic attacks. See video of her attacks in Ohio and Rhode Island today at http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/election-2008-hillary-meltdown/

-Roadkill Refugee

Posted by: roadkillrefugee | February 24, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Those people who are expecting (hoping) that Obama will wilt under the so-called "Republican attack machine" are likely to be disappointed. So far he has shown himself to be pretty tough and pretty adept at dealing with the bombs that have been thrown at him by Clinton, McCain, and the froth-at-the-mouth Republican right wing -- including the latest, standard attack-your-patriotism GOP gambit.

I think if he gets the nomination he's going to run as efficient a national campaign as his primary campaign has been, and I think he'll give McCain a run for his money. He may not win; nobody can predict the future and what may happen between now and November. But he'll run better than Hillary -- who starts with a 47% disapproval rate.

Posted by: jac13 | February 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are ensuring a McCain Presidency by their constant below-the-belt attacks on Senator Clinton.

That's alright, who would want to support Obama after his comment about "knocking out" Senator Clinton.

If he can be that tone-deaf about violence against women, it shows that he's not the kind of person we want to have in the whitehouse.

SNL hit it right on the head.

Obama would never have gotten to this point if there hadn't been a writers strike because they would have pointed out how full of hot air he is and the fact that his entire campaign has been based on Clinton bashing and vague rhetoric.

Posted by: svreader | February 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR (ON OSCARS' NIGHT) ...

HILLARY STARS IN ORIGINAL "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" (OR "HOW I LEARNED TO DEFEND BILL") ...

'Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor ..."

newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

Newsday.com
An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis
BY GLENN THRUSH

glenn.thrush@newsday.com

February 24, 2008

... But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant. ...

In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she'd been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.

In her 2003 autobiography "Living History," Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired "cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office."

However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR (ON OSCARS' NIGHT) ...

HILLARY STARS IN ORIGINAL "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" (OR "HOW I LEARNED TO DEFEND BILL") ...

'Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor ..."

newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

Newsday.com
An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis
BY GLENN THRUSH

glenn.thrush@newsday.com

February 24, 2008

... But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant. ...

In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she'd been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.

In her 2003 autobiography "Living History," Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired "cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office."

However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

State of the Black Union 2008
Hillary Attending vs. Barack Obama not attending
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIapXSKKr2U

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

If the Clintonites keep sarcastically referring to Barack Obama as "the Messiah," I assume it is fair game--given all their financial scandals past, present and to come--to refer to the Clintons as "the Profits" ...

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

The problem with Hillary defending the child rapist was that she tried to make the case that the girl wasn't really raped because she was supposedly attracted to older men. That is NOT an honest defense. There is a difference between Hillary presenting evidence for her clients innocence. But saying that the little girl somehow wanted to be raped is the problem.

Posted by: zb95 | February 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON DEFENDED A RAPIST IN HER PAST

BREAKING NEWS

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_client.html

Newsday's Glenn Thrush has that rarest of things: A new chapter to the Hillary's biography, and one that cuts sharply against a central part of her image: That she's spent her whole career fighting for children:

[T]here is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

[snip]
[Clinton's] account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

Clinton's aides point out, accurately, that she was bound to present her indigent client the best defense available, which she did: He was able to plead down to a much lesser offense.

But read the whole story. Thrush reconstructs the crime, Clinton's role as a legal "bulldog," and her defense through court and police documents, and interviews a range of parties, including the alleged victim.

It's really an astonishingly good piece of reporting.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 24, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company