Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No Valedictory from Clinton

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., shake hands at the end of the Democratic presidential debate in Austin, Texas, Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008. (AP.)

By Dan Balz
AUSTIN -- When Hillary Clinton reached out to shake the hand of Barack Obama at last night's CNN-Univision debate and declared "I am absolutely honored" to be with him, there was a palpable pause in the press filing center to await the conclusion. Where was she heading?

It took only an instant to answer that question. Her closing comment at Thursday's debate was no campaign valedictory, for it is not in the nature of Clinton or her husband to give in or give up until all hope is gone. It was yet another call to voters to look beyond the big crowds and high energy surrounding Obama's campaign, to evaluate the two candidates on the basis of who could do more to make the lives of ordinary Americans better.

"Whatever happens, we're going to be fine," she said. "You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about."

That is the argument around which her candidacy is now constructed. Clinton's dramatic closer -- one that her opponent's campaign said had been borrowed from both her husband and John Edwards -- generated a spark inside her own worried campaign staff, which has debated with ever greater urgency how best to balance strength and empathy in their candidate's message and persona.

Could she marry warrior and mother into an authentically appealing personality? Could she project herself in a way that would change the trajectory of the race? Could she change the race without an all-out assault on a rival who has proven extraordinarily difficult to attack? In that closing few seconds of Thursday's debate, her advisers hope, she found the formula.

Others disagree, for Obama's 11-contest winning streak has created a powerful narrative that now permeates the Democratic race. It is a story of Obama rising and Clinton in retreat. One needed look no further than Friday's Austin American-Statesman for proof of how pervasive this narrative has become.

The debate dominated the front page, with a small photo of Obama and Clinton at the top of the page next to a headline that read, "Sharper bite to second Clinton, Obama face-off." All of that was relatively even-handed. But immediately below was an encomium to Obama -- a six-column photograph of the smiling senator with a group of Texas musicians at a post-debate rally at the Austin Music Hall. Over the photo in very large type was a headline that rendered a pro-Obama judgment on the debate: "No knockout blow."

That conveyed Obama rising. On the editorial page, Ben Sargent, the paper's editorial cartoonist, pushed the other half of the narrative with a cartoon of Clinton, in her headquarters, saying to an aide, "We've got to turn around this perception we're on life support ... death's door ... last legs ... " At the door a campaign worker tells a man selling burial plots, "Perhaps you'd better come back later."

There was probably no clear winner out of Thursday's debate, which likely benefits Obama. If Clinton's goal was somehow to discredit Obama in the eyes of undecided voters, or to demonstrate such command that they will think twice about investing their futures in the hands of the senator from Illinois, Thursday's debate failed the test. The debate showed what the primaries and caucuses and past debates have shown: The Democrats have two talented if altogether different candidates from which to choose.

Certainly there were moments when she showed her experience and knowledge to good effect. Her handling of the final question -- which was to describe a crisis and how each had dealt with it -- was more deft than his, as she recalled without directly mentioning her husband's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

At another point, she was pressed to say whether she really believed Obama was not ready to be commander in chief. Voters, she said, must decide who is qualified and who is not. But as she then touched upon a series of hot spots around the world -- elections in Pakistan, Kosovo's declaration of independence, Cuba's change in leadership -- she conveyed a familiarity with the world. Obama, in contrast, dealt with the question largely with rhetoric straight out of his stump speech.

But Obama had his moments, too. When Clinton offered up the prepared line about his appropriation of language from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's 2006 campaign -- "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox" -- there were boos from the audience, and it was instantly clear she had made a tactical blunder.

"The notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who was one of my national co-chairs, who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think, is silly," Obama replied, "and, you know, this is where we start getting into silly season, in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it."

Whenever she sought to highlight deeper experience or more impressive credentials, he countered with his message that all the credentials in the world won't matter if she can't change the way politics is practiced in Washington.

"The thinking is that somehow, they're being duped, and eventually they're going to see the reality of things," he said of Clinton's charge that he is all talk. "Well, I think they perceive [the] reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. What they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done."

There will be another debate Tuesday in Cleveland, one more chance for Clinton to drive home her message. Thursday suggested that she will not engage in direct attacks on Obama, though her staff will continue to do all it can to raise questions about him and undermine his credibility.

Her lead in Texas has disappeared and her advantage in Ohio is narrow. In previous primaries and caucuses, Obama generally has gained ground in the final stages, which should make her all the more nervous. But he has yet to crack the big states, and so there is a hope among Clinton loyalists that victories on March 4 will truly shake up the race, if not the delegate count. So for now, no valedictories from Clinton -- just more doggedness and determination to keep going.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 22, 2008; 12:21 PM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Officer Killed Guarding Clinton Motorcade
Next: After Officer's Death, Clinton Cancels Event


anqdst dnwifujry fqhnuvgeb glmywnk ftcmd cmsbezp ksjd

Posted by: svpyqhdaj xyrkb | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"I think the adults have tried to talk you Obama-freaks out of this pending disaster long enough."

Why such rampant disrespect from Hillary voters? We're not "adults" if we vote for Obama? We're "Obama-freaks"? You're insulting 50% of the Democratic electorate. Is that something you really want to do. If Hillary somehow wins, you'll need those voters.

What about all the major newspaper editorial boards (over 100 at last count) that have endorsed Obama? Are they all immature children and Obama-freaks?

San Francisco Chronicle
Los Angeles Times
Houston Chronicle
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
Dallas Morning News
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Philadelphia Inquirer
Cleveland Plain-Dealer
Boston Globe
Arizona Republic
Atlanta Journal Constitution
...just to name a few

All have looked seriously at both Clinton's and Obama's records and decided Obama is the better choice.

If you disagree and think Hillary is the better choice, how about engaging on the issues instead of hurling childish insults.

Posted by: mpl2 | February 23, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm terrified that the Clintons are willing to destroy the Democratic Party in order to win the nomination. If Obama was in Hillary's shoes -- 11 straight double digit losses and 200 less delegates -- the Clintons would have hounded him out of the race by now. It's time for Bill and Hill to call it quits.

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 23, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, you seem to have latched onto the phrase "let's get real" when sniping at Barack Obama.

Could you and your husband please get real on honesty, ethics and morality?

You both have some explaining to do.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 22, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse












Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 22, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Don't listen or respond to Piglet. She's a Clinton shill who has done no real research and all of her points are simply the Clinton campaign line without any critical analysis. I wonder that Clintonites call Obama's supporters "cultists" when none of them can critically analyze their own candidate and only parrot everything she says.

Piglet - can you name any substantive piece of legislation that Clinton has put forward in her time in the Senate? If not, then don't talk about Obama's supporters being unable to do so. As they say: those in glass houses. . .

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Generally a good analysis of the debate the other night, however Dan Balz needs to do some basic fact checking and not just depend on media myths that is not up to date. Balz says "...he (Obama) has yet to crack the big states...".
However, unless I am missing something, of the 15 largest states in the US ranked by population - both Obama and Clinton have won 4 (clinton - CA, NY, NJ and MA); (Obama - IL, GA, VA, and WA). The other states have either not yet had their primaries or nominating caucuses or include Michigan and Florida where no Democratic campaigning was allowed. It would seem that a reporter on the Washington Post would be a bit more rigorous in his reporting standards.

Posted by: BillEdwards | February 22, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

I support Hillary. She did magnificently during the CNN debate with Barack. Still, I think whoever advised her on her appearance, demeanor. and body language could use serious assistance. I pick up on nonverbal cues that go far beyond the audio content. There was much I saw that detracted from an otherwise stellar delivery. Now I can only pray. -JD

Posted by: jazzdeaf2 | February 22, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary as Obama's vice president aka Lady in Waiting for him to have an accident?

I think not if Obama wants to get a good night's sleep during his stay in the White House.

Obama is far too smart to be conned into this sort of situation.

P.S. Notice how the Clinton campaign spends "other peoples money" and wisely Hillary will only lend the campaign $5 mil. and not spend her own or Bill's money.

By the way, just who or what is on the hook to repay this loan? Hollywood friends of Hillary even after she is finally relegated to Junior Senator from New York? Or some new Chicom bagman?

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | February 22, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

O.K. Hillary when will you let us see your Form 1040? What are you hiding and when did you hide it?

But what all the over sixty old ladies of this nation (Hillary's remaining core support) want to know is how another sixty-year old can continue to look so good?

(Isn't this really the question the lady in New Hampshire asked and Hillary dodged an answer by sniffling?)

In other words who is your skin surgeon and botox man? Or is the rumor true that you are a real life female Dorian Grey? Or maybe just another wanna be Barbara Walters?

Posted by: AmericanInterestsFirstandLast | February 22, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

JakeD... Sorry it is ELEVEN STRAIGHT!

New Mexico was contested on Super Tuesday... that makes the tally 13-9 OBAMA.

Since then, it's ELEVEN for OBAMA and ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NULL for Clinton.

But of course, in Clinton math, those 24 wins don't count.

Posted by: jade_7243 | February 22, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

America is ready for new leadership and it will not come from the Republican Party. Obama or Clinton, one will be the next President.

The Republicans always bring up Ronad Reagan. Remember ge said in 1980 not to vote for him if you are better off now than four years ago. Apply that to today-the Democrats will take the White House in a Goldwater type election year.

Right wing radio and neo-conservatives are mad because they have lost control of the Republican party-about time.

Posted by: COWENS99 | February 22, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

I am actually beginning to think that an Obama-Clinton ticket would work.

I, for one, am an Obama supporter who thinks Clinton would also be a good President.

If they can make peace and put their two apparatus' together, they'd win 45 states.

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

Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the Bush taxcuts which she says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians.

The second noteworthy commentary was Hillary's closing comment, a subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Holding back the tears, Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation only audience took the bait "hook, line and sinker".
The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | February 22, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary supporter and she still can get the nomination. I do not want her to take the VP spot under Obama. I would prefer the democrats lose to McCain and I will be supporting McCain as a McCain Democrat from Massachusetts. We have a big group ready to make that happen. Just you wait and see Obama maniacs. Yes, I am a sore loser but I do feel Mccain will be better for this country than Obama

Posted by: vs_sv | February 22, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

By his own admission during last night's debate, Senator Obama has spent the past two years "campaigning for the presidency." I believe that equals out to 80 percent of the time he has served as a federal-level politician. This is a most telling statement, and I am very disappointed in how the mainstream media has preferred to turn a blind eye to such statements and instead cram down our collective throat Senator Clinton's "Xerox" quote. I suppose, though, that Senator Obama's smartest move early in his campaign was getting a billionaire media mogul to throw down the race gauntlet for him, thereby bullying the complicit silence of the MSM.

(Side note to Ms. Winfrey: When I say that I think Senator Obama needs more federal-level experience, I do not mean your race-baiting interpretation that Senator Obama needs to "wait his turn." I mean that if my car breaks down, I want the experienced mechanic to take care of it, not the guy up the street who's looked under the hoods of a few cars and is really excited about what he believes he can do. Fixing a broken country is far more daunting and precarious than fixing a car, so why would I entrust my future into any less capable hands than I would entrust my car?)

Now, back on point. When Senator Clinton ran for her New York senate seat in 2000, the MSM and all her detractors could not wait to accuse her of being a "carpetbagger" and of only thinking ahead to a run at the presidency in 2004. However, she was able, during a year when being a Clinton was by no means a positive point, to convince the people of New York (not a state known for being an "easy sell") that she would serve them honorably, and that she would not desert them before her term was up. She kept her word and served her constituents well enough, including during the most horrifying moment of New York's--and this country's--history, that the people of New York thanked her with a second term as one of their U.S. senators.

Now hearing about Senator Obama's self-admitted marathon campaigning during his federal-level years made me curious about his state senate service, and when I look into those records, I see someone who has run for the offices that he has held because they are the inevitable stepping stones to what he has desired most all along.

True, he has done good things. One must make a positive impact of some sort to continue to win votes. However, he also padded his state senate voting record with "present" votes--a lovely passive-aggressive way to keep a cheery, positive record. After a failed run for a U.S. House seat, he received the ultimate series of breaks that led to him capturing his current Senate seat as a virtually uncontested candidate (unless there's anyone out there who seriously considers Alan Keyes to be any sort of political threat). Since then, he has written two books filled with lots of personal confessions as a means of vetting himself to the people as being a "transparent politician."

However, I see a more telling transparency when I look at how each of the senators' states recently voted. Each candidate won the vote of their respective state. Look closer and you'll see that Senator Clinton won every county in New York State except one. This is not true for Senator Obama's win in Illinois. He, in fact, lost almost every county that makes up southern Illinois--a region of the state comprised of blue-collar workers who don't possess college degrees or earn $50,000 or more. These counties went to Senator Clinton. That is a very telling transparency.

Contrary to the beliefs of the current president, the engine of this country isn't its white-collar elite. Instead, the engine is the blue-collar workforce--people like my father, who worked often thankless time-clocked jobs for more than 30 years before injury retired him. I learned an honest work ethic from him. I also learned that the longest day's work won't amount to much if the people in power don't listen to your needs. These are the people who need the most help. These are the people who should inspire real pride in our country. And these are the people who, after 10 ½ years of familiarity with Senator Obama, cast their confidence in Senator Clinton.

At the end of the day, both senators are, as someone rightfully pointed out to me, "just politicians." But when I look at Senator Obama, I see a politician who has spent the past decade avoiding the fights that forge political strength and instead carefully crafting the perfect launch pad for obtaining what has always been his ultimate goal.

When I look at Senator Clinton, I see a politician who doesn't have the mostly spotless track record of her opponent because she has been willing to place herself in the line of fire for who and what she believes in. Yes, she's made mistakes, but she has picked herself up, learned from her errors, and gone on to fight another day. She has sustained incredible professional and personal blows throughout her career, and yet, to paraphrase Maya Angelou, still she rises.

As much as I love the power of words, I'm going to have to say that when it comes to leading this country, words are not enough. Senator Obama won't be able to read a beautiful speech and solve all our woes from the Oval Office. And I see no indication that someone who has yet to know the burn of true political fire will be able to withstand what lies ahead, both in the general election and in the political arena of our ever-changing and often dangerous world.

Senator Clinton has survived the fires time and again, and she stands strong and ready for a new day.

Posted by: k-dub | February 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary not going into an attack mode was gracious, but that effect wasn't the cause. The cause is her assessment she risks looking negative to no effect, or worse - much worse. For a candidate to be booed over a small dig - wowser. Flagrant lying insults are normally witnessed with silent group expectation. Remember "Teflon" Reagan? "Asbestos" Obama has forced Hillary to Xerox a page from his book on the power of positive messaging, if it isn't too late for her, which it is, notwithstanding the audacity of her hope.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 22, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not answer the question about his support. He just said "can 20 million people be delusional?" Unfortunately, the answer is that mass hysteria is all too common and yes, 20 million people can be caught up in the moment. So is Obama running as the pet rock of the 21st century? Or is he saying that millions of people were rational for shelling out $3.95 for a chunk of stone as a Christmas present.

His claims about a difficult childhood need to be viewed in light of the reality that he attended wealthy private prep schools, an Ivy League college and an Ivy League law school. Hardly a life of deprivation.

But most importantly, Obama needs to define himself, his beliefs and his policies. If he gets the Democratic nomination, he is not going to be able to adopt and slightly adapt issues and ideas the way he has done with Hillary Clinton. He needs to state his positions clearly rather than hiding behind moving but vague oratory. If he does not, McCain and the Republicans will be free to fill in the vacuum however they choose, and believe me, it won't be pretty.

With Clinton, Obama has taken the strategy of releasing position papers that closely resemble hers so it is almost impossible to debate him on the issues. McCain's positions are well known and very different from those of any of the Democratic candidates. If Obama starts shifting, the voters are going to see it for what it is, pandering.

Posted by: djstates | February 22, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Those who think there is media bias for Obama and against Clinton have not been paying attention to this the whole way through. The slant in the coverage has fluctuated. There was a time not so long ago when Obama gave a major speech on nuclear disarmament on the 5th anniversary of his anti-Iraq-war speech on the same day that the Clinton camp released their funding figures. Because she had made 5% more than him in that month, the Washington Post led with "Clinton blocks Obama at every turn" on their front page, rather than report a major initiative of huge relevance to the collective security of the world. Anne Kornblut, who along with Dan Balz, has been the main WP journalist covering this, has been practically embedded with the Clinton campaign, and her articles and headlines have had a consistent pro-Clinton slant. In this period, Murdoch's Wall St Journal and Associated Press both also leaned towards Clinton. And most papers, based on the polls, just took the "inevitable Hillary" line, before anyone had even started to pay much attention. This was a disservice to the public.

As the campaign evolved, selected journalists caught the Obama fever, just as the public did, though usually later. The time delays relate to the length of time it takes people to understand the structure of the Obama/Clinton polarity, which was not about policy, gender, race, age or any demographic, but rather about methodology, about two different "arts of war": the bunker mentality versus consensus-building, how to deal with conflict, when to foster it. Because the public are so fed up with the Bush war, the Lewinsky nonsense and the whole manifestly dysfunctional executive/legislature partisan infighting in Washington, the Obama message rang true. The establishment journalists, embedded with the Washington infighters and lobbyists, took longer to work it out. They couldn't see the forest for the trees. Those who are still left scratching their heads are the ones who find the Obama fever to be cultish or demagogic, consisting of "good speeches". Clinton is the only one who makes sense to them because their mental language to understand these things is so impoverished. They are unprepared for the novel political idea that times are so desperate in the world, and things are so broken, that something that is the closest that the US can get to a coalition government, is now required. Hence the bipartisan appeal of Obama.

This journalistic blindness to the big picture is nothing new. In the days before the Iraq war, we protested like crazy against this manifest insanity, but the journalists, TV and radio just ran the Administration's spin, quoted the officials, and not only allowed the atrocity to occur, but promoted it. For those of us who opposed the war, it felt like the country had gone crazy. How many of you remember this period? Later everyone (the Economist, Hillary Clinton etc) all said things like "If we knew then what we know now...." etc, but *we* did know different, and we were right, and we were in a tiny minority at the time. It seems that with Obama, there is every hope for repair and renewal in the country's spirit, and perspective in the political process. It seems possible that integrity, intelligence and accountability could be greatly boosted in Washington. If only these values could spread to the media to replace the fickle, insubstantial, timid, divisive and often infantile coverage we have been subjected to from both right and left, to say nothing of the "passionate intensity of the worst" (Limbaugh, Fox).

Come on, lets have some conviction now in our journalism that matches what is needed in this time of mounting global crisis.

Posted by: tony848 | February 22, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

NewEra (6:15), it's true. The link is here:

Posted by: nshafroth | February 22, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

S Crappy,

Saying what over and over? You have a nice weekend as well and make sure you don't drink too much koolaid and drive on your way back to your Moonie ship:)

Posted by: brigittepj | February 22, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Let me add one more thing, Storyof5P, unrelated to this thread:

I think one thing younger voters don't understand about Hillary is that she came of age when to be respected as a women in the executive boardroom meant lookingm acting and speaking tough - thus the pantsuit and the sometimes rough-edged demeanor. This is why older voters, especially women, are more sympathetic towards her. This has changed, largely thanks to the women's movement. The more women realize how much she is reviled by some men for superficial reasons, the more they give her a pass on the occasional tough talk. But with Hillary nut-crackers for sale and an entire organized movement of professional white male Hillary haters (See GQ's great story on this: it just seems wrong to let sexism determine the democratic winner.

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

As Andrew Sullivan points out, the number of small donations is having a profound strategic impact for Obama:

"More impressive than the amount of money Obama has raised is the sheer number of people who have donated to his campaign."

What a way to have an impact, and counter the fat cats. If you haven't yet, get off your butt and make a donation no matter what size. It takes under a minute. If not now, then when? Has there ever been a more important election in your lifetime? And get your friends and family to do so too. Yes we can, darn it.

Posted by: ben2 | February 22, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse


Cool nickname! Glad you brought this up.

You wrote:
"So, basically your decision has nothing to do with positions."

Not so, Storyof5P, but the points I made were the deal-breakers.

For example, I personally think Obama's health care plan can't fly financially because not enough people will be covered, so that's an area I feel very strongly about. She seems to have a deeper grasp of the changes that will be needed to overhaul this dysfunctional system.

I don't like the fact that he voted to weaken protections for people living near nuclear power plants - you'd think a law requiring nuke plants to give early warning to nearby residents in case of a leak would be a no-brainer for our progressive Obama. And yet, he took over $200,000 from a nuclear power company (can you say lobbyists?) and then voted against the law.
That's kinda creepy.

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

If several news outlets and various posters are correct, then Hillary lifted portions of her closing comments from a speech by Bill Clinton in 1992 and from comments made by Senator Edwards in a December 2007 debate. Too bad. She almost put forth a human side but now it just looks manufactured and contrived. Both Obama and Clinton did well last night and neither hurt their campaigns. Should be an interesting 10 days to March 4.

Posted by: NewEra | February 22, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

While Obama will probably get the nomination, don't be so sure that this race is over. If Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, the race will surely continue. Clinton does very well in debates. The candidates have one more crucial debate upcoming next week. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Clinton takes both Ohio and Texas. If she is able at the same time to take Rhode Island and/or Vermont the tone of the campaign will certainly change as we await Pennsylvania.

Posted by: JSnapper | February 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Let me give Hillary her props. Ramping down the rhetoric was a smart move. here's why:

She wins among Dems (narrowly, but still). It's crossover Repubs and Indies who are overwhelmingly for Obama, i.e., the Anybody But Hillary crowd. Hillary is the issue, not Obama, and Hillary can't MAKE Obama the issue. So it all comes down to how SHE is seen. Appear less harsh, maybe the ABH crowd stays home. Attack Obama unfairly -- which are pretty much the only attacks available, given that they're 95% identical on the issues and the "experience" dog just won't hunt -- and you give the ABH crowd red meat. You're not changing anyone's minds these days, it's all about turnout.

I've seen a lot of, for lack of a better word, kind words toward Hillary. So she achieved that goal, and I don't think it is by accident -- nothing with the Clintons ever is. But maybe the best testament to her is that she changed course _on the fly_. She tried the Xerox line -- an attack dog line -- and it flopped. Watch how she stumbled as the crowd booed, she's thinking "what do I try now?!" And she went to plan B. Plan Bs have been in short supply with her.

Someone said "the best politics is good government" or something like that. Maybe the best campaigning is to maintain your dignity, be a good sport, and compete aggressively with honor. It's worked for Obama. If Nixon could (at least fake) reinventing himself, she certainly can. And it's _never_ over until it's over. Barack loses the two states, mark my words, he'll get the Howard Dean scream treatment.

Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater are dead. It would be nice if their politics finally was laid to rest with them.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 22, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse


So, basically your decision has nothing to do with positions. That is fine, but it is unfair your own lack of analytical thinking on Obama.

As for the debate last night, his answers were much more forward-thinking. Clinton was just reciting the usual stuff every politician has been saying for the last 50 years. Obama was talking about the future.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 22, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

****Important point!!!!!!!!!!!********

Obama was the one that reached out for her hand, not the other way aruond!

Posted by: rawana | February 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

We are damn*d. Gen Y you are a big let down. Your music sucks, your girl celebs ar H*s, and you have no political judgment.

Our two biggest demographics just plain suck. Boomer and Y's. Boomers you had good music :)

Obama is a Boomer not Gen X. We need a Gen X pres in 2012.

Posted by: mul | February 22, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

OK who should the Dems run in 2012?

I say a white guy with a recored of accomplishment.

Posted by: mul | February 22, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton said today that she is going to insist that FL and MI be seated. The truth is that the only thing this person cares about is gaining power.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 22, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can maybe run in four years. But alas she is a women and little old ladies can't be pres.

BTW - Can any one name the very negative runs for pres. either Clinton made. 1992 1996 2008

I was there but don't remember what was so bad about these runs.

Obama can't be pres either. Such is life.

Posted by: mul | February 22, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

This youtube on Hillary's "lifting" of the supposedly empathetic "moment" at the end of the debate is pretty hilarious. Her supposedly emotional moments are not only scripted--they're scripted by and for other speakers!

Posted by: nshafroth | February 22, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

brigittepj-- Do you think by saying it over and over it will neither will another Clinton Presidency. Have a great weekend!

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | February 22, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I believe in Hillary Clinton and will stay with her until she quits. I'm the first to admit that her campaign was poorly run, but that doesn't diminish her as a candidate. I think she would be a great president because I know what she's about.

I don't feel that way at all about Barack Obama. I should not have to go to his website to find out where he stands on issues.

To copy, not a phrase, not a sentence, but an entire paragraph from someone else's speech without giving them credit is just downright dishonest. Especially when your entire campaign is based on the perception that you are writing these oratory gems and it is what distinguishes your candidacy.

I'm also not impressed that his qualification as Commander-in-Chief is that "I wouldn't be running if I didn't feel I was ready to be Commander in Chief." Really? As a retired soldier, that sends a chill down my spine.

Then there's his wife who's statements are more telling to me than what the media portrays. She'd have to think about supporting Clinton? This is the first time in her adult life that she is really proud of America? Because people are supporting her husband? Got self-serving power syndrome?

But what worries me most are Obama supporters. Those I see inteviewed over and over (and not just the TX senator) who don't have a clue where he stands on issues, but will clap and cheer when he blows his nose. They will swoon and faint and make videos that they try to shove down everyones throat on the blogosphere. And they will trash, yes absolutely trash, the Clintons in an effort to justify their rabid fervor for Obama. They see themselves as a world movement?

God help us all.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 22, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

You media guys just don't get it.

Here's an analogy. Think of a person whose long time lover has strayed to another -- a fresh, new, exciting love. Suppose he/she wants to win the lover's affections back again. He/she shouldn't try to tear down the new, fresh love. That would only drive the straying lover deeper into the new love's arms.

What he/she should do is try to make the straying one remember the good times, what he/she loved about the old love. The spurned lover should be his/her best most attractive self.

How's that apply to Hillary last night? Well, in Wisconsin, her "old love" flirted with Barack -- heck, didn't just flirt with him, but slept with him. That would be women and downscale whites I'm talking about. Hillary wants to win them back in Ohio and Texas (and also wants to keep Latinos from sampling his wares). The way to do that was to put on display that was most appealing to those constituencies in the first place.

It's not about scoring a knock-out and tearing down Obama. If she had tried to do that she would have just looked like an embittered lover, who couldn't get over the fact that it was over.

That's no way to win back one's straying partner's affections.

Of course, it would be better if the partner had never strayed.

Posted by: taylor | February 22, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I must be dreaming: it's an Obama fact-check!

This is heartening, but a little after the fact.

Apparently Obama's team couldn't attribute his comments about under-equipped US Army platoons to any one platoon captain. Didn't he do the same thing in his book, making up "user profiles" instead of writing about real people? Guy should be a web producer!

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see this board filled up with Hillarybots (and the assorted right-wing kook) yammering, spinning, smearing and throwing up in their mouths a little because they are terrified of losing an election their candidate should have won easily. Why? Because it means you aren't calling voters in Texas and Ohio for your candidate. Typical. If complaining were campaigning, Obama would have had to drop out a long time ago. Do y'all understand that smug feelings of entitlement, not to mention lashing out at better run campaigns, don't actually win elections? You've lost fair and square, so you're trying to change the rules. If you can't beat Obama, then you sure can't beat McCain and the slime machine.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | February 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Hillary's run for the presidency was that she basically wanted to win by getting sympathy votes. Vote for me because I'm a woman, vote for me because Bill cheated on me. Vote for me because people say I'm not likeable. But one thing the campaign faced to realize is that the sympathy thing can only take you very far. After awhile Americans begin to ask you okay give me a reason to vote for you, and Hillary didn't have a reason other than to say I want to be president. Yesterday's debate closing moments only proved my point. The only thing anyone can remember from Hillary last night was that she was sympathethic. All my female friends who were on the fence between Hillary and Obama said after last nights sympathy move they were voting for Obama now because they were tired of feeling sorry for Hillary. In this country feeling sorry for yourself can only take you so far. I'm sorry to say it's over for Hillary Clinton. She just never gave anyone a reason to vote for her.

Posted by: lumi21us | February 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse


Please, be quiet. Floridians have no one to blame but their state party leadership for their so-called "disenfranchisement," which in the real world is called "a penalty for not following the damn rules." Your state decided to hold its primary earlier against the wishes of the DNC and there it is. The bed was made. Lay in it. (Ditto that for Michigan.)

If we really want to talk about delusional voters, then let's talk about the HRC supporters. In the beginning, HRC was a lock to win this nomination. Let's not forget the perch from which she has fallen so far and so fast and so unbelievably. She began this race with far more money and connections than Obama but his ability to best her says plenty about the arrogance and assumption of inevitability within her campaign. It's not over til it's over.

But it's darn near close for HRC. She'll need to beat Obama by a landslide in Texas and Ohio. Her campaign has said this first. Not the media. And so, it's interesting to hear her campaign and supporters spin that there are still 15 states left. Whatever. More ground for her to lose.

Honestly, I like HRC but what I don't like is how she has been dismissive of all the people within HER OWN PARTY who have voted for Obama. "It's time to get real," she says. It's time for her to take her own darn advice.

Posted by: spookyjuice1 | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse


Hillmannic has a valid point here. You're yelling at the wrong people. It's not Obama's fault that the Michigan and Florida primaries did not count. Whatever we think about the fairness of it, the DNC decided to punish those states by stripping their delegates. More to the point, though, Clinton and all of the other candidates agreed - in Clinton's case in writing - to abide by those rules.

A funny thing about rules, though, is that once you agree to them you have to follow them, regardless of how mad other people get. I agree that it was stupid of the DNC to take the delegates away, but blaming Obama for this is even more dumb, frankly, because there's nothing he could have done about it. Clinton's attempt to get those votes counted may be noble, as far as you are concerned, but it's still against the rules.

I hate the rules by which we run the general election, too, but we still have to abide by them. In my book, letting 271 effectively unelected delegates circumvent the popular vote in the media age is really undemocratic. However, until that changes, we have to abide by the rules we set out. That applies to Clinton and everyone else.

Posted by: alterego1 | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Keep dreaming and spinning your tales with Obama. Why don't you go do some REAL reporting instead of influencing this election. How about the back room arm twisting by Obama's boys of the black delegates backing Clinton. They've spoken up - but you can't seem to write about anything but your fantasy ending.

50% - 50% is far from over.

Posted by: Thinker | February 22, 2008 01:38 PM

you might wanna rethink your post name - false advertising at best...

Posted by: LABC | February 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

jkallen001: You wrote:

"her fake, shark-like smile she gave everytime obama talked (and she could not look him in the eyes) sent chills down my spine. i think leatherfaced has been dethroned in Tejas."

Now **that's** angry and testy! You misogynistic white males are money in the bank for Obama! (I'm assuming you're a man). And yet, all those who would take Hillary on her merits -- and not based on her past enemys' spurious arguments -- are still routing for her, and we're not going away. Sorry! ;)

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

very thoughtful post, syoung1, and to the heart of where most non-breathless supporters of HC or BO are. no one truly supporting HC or BO would want to see "their" person lose ugly, when the very real possibility of Madame or Mister Majority Leader looms LARGE for the "loser." HC knows this, apparently better than so many of the (similarly written) posters here of "life long liberal democrats" that claim that "if HC loses I will vote for the other party." because "Obama is a liar cheat and fraud."

Posted by: rajjjj | February 22, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The more I listen to Hillary the less I like her. She seems to be believe that a poor solution is better than none at all.
Her health care plan is a bad idea. Forcing the uninsured to purchase health insurance or slap them with a penalty if they can't pay seems ill conceived. Please explain to me how this helps the middle class living pay check to pay check? Also, she likes to push her 'experience' even though she has been in the Senate only a few years more than Obama. I applaud some of her work in the Senate and I hope she can work with President Obama in the future when she returns.

Posted by: Drewriders | February 22, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Spacegirl, I am sorry that your vote didn't count in Florida.

However, the people that need to be blamed in this are:
1. Florida Republicans
2. Florida Democrats and DNC (for not appealing in time or preventing this)
3. Howard Dean, for not showing leadership on this matter

Honestly, I think the DNC would have taken this situation more seriously if they would have realized that the race would be so tight and go on for so long. It reminds me of the calls for national election reform that followed the tight 2000 race.

However, the rules cannot be changed and Florida cannot be admitted. Everyone agreed to the rules in advance. The DNC had to act to prevent further insubordination among other states vying for "leader" status amongst the primaries.

The DNC needs to fully evaluate the primary system and make reforms, yes. But AFTER this election, obviously. Perhaps rotating schedules of regional primaries (5 national regions) that can change the order election to election.

No one, no candidate, would want a single primary date. They would KILL themselves and that's not the intent of the process. Caucuses and staggered primaries encourage the candidates to visit all the states and get to know their issues and have personal contact with the electorate. That's the point.

Regardless, these states need to stop one-upping each other and trying to jockey for first. And the DNC needs to really evaluate this issue and come up with some firm mandates before everything goes to hell.

Posted by: hillmannic | February 22, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Evan....(sorry, I missed this) "ok, that's what i thought.

the real rationale for not allowing MI and FL votes to count as they stand now is...what would prevent EVERY state from doing whatever they feel like with the primary calendar next cycle? states are very expensive to campaign in and we don't need more dirty money in politics. the primary system may be a mess but muddied waters don't make good cleaning fluid."

I agree, and Senator Bill NElson of Florida has proposed a much more fair system going forward. However, it was Mr. Obama's CHOICE to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. HE was not required to. There was also a LARGE effort by Obama supporters to "vote undecided" as a vote for Obama. This too, like the Florida vote campaign and the television commercials that NO ONE ELSE Ran here in Florida might end up being creating sanctions against his campaign, but I won;t hold my breath. Would I be in favor of another Florida PRIMARY? Sure. As they are closed and there is a residency statute to register. I cannot imagine that there are hundred's of thousands of unregistered Democrats here who would flock to the registrars office to SUDDENLY become registered. If that were the case, it would take some scrutiny. Elections are not perfect, but nor should they be rigged. Just look at what we have in Washington NOW because of it.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama as the son of an immigrant father who left his family when he was two years old has overcome incredible odds. He is a man of obvious intellect and integrity. A fresh breeze to do away with the sixteen years of stank in the White House we have suffered through. Yes the Clinton years were better than the Bush ones but should we be proud of Bill? He left and the Democrats lost the House of Representatives, the Senate and of course the White House. Not so great a legacy verdad?

Vote for Obama and our country will be viewed with respect again around the world and we will use our treasure for good like education, health care, and Americas infrastructure.

We are spilling blood daily and spending our hard owned cash in massive amounts for a war that should never have been fought. I am a Cuban-American U.S. Army Vietnam veteran, my grandfather fought in WW1 and my son fought in Iraq. Barack Obama has it right that our enemies were right were we needed them in Afghanistan and we let them get away and now they are getting stronger regardless of what George W. And his surge b.s. tell you. Guns vs butter plain and simple. We need to vote for change before we are totally broke both financially and morally.

As a Cuban America I also support his position on how to handle Cuba. Continuing the same policy which has failed for over fifty years is plain ludicrous.

From a mixed racial background to President of the Harvard law review, to community organizer, to U.S. Senator, to President of the United States. This story is the American Dream in real life. Latinos vote for someone of mixed race born to a teen mother who took this start and made all of us immigrant children proud.


These are my opinions and I am sticking to them!

RAUL DEJESUS PEDRAZA A Texan Latino who got on the bandwagon way early.

Posted by: pedraza1 | February 22, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse






Posted by: pedraza1 | February 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse


As to those who start their posts "As a...lifetime liberal democrat" - My ex-husband probably thought I was/am a troll BUT considering the fact that my first presidential vote was for McGovern, I have always been a feminist, for abortion rights and most definitely against war - more specificially the one in Vietnam, where my brother was killed and this latest one in Iraq...and the list is way too long to go into here. I'd say I'm pretty much a liberal democrat who is certainly entitled to express my views regardless whether small-minded people want to categorize anyone that begins their statement with specific terminology...could just be the truth. Although I didn't burn my bra in the '60's 'cause I really need it. But all things being equal I think I'm pretty liberal. I didn't get my "troll" handbook to know better so I guess I made a "faux pas" in posting phrases...will know better time now that I know the "troll nazis" are patrolling.

Posted by: eileen6 | February 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

You HRC supporters are getting so angry and testy. People are sick of the Clintons and their dirty, win-by-any-means politics and, so, they get no love from the media. What a difference from the HRC supporter SMUGNESS we saw only a few weeks ago. You guys are like cornered animals and just snapping at everything and everyone...get over it.

Anyone who thinks her little speach at the end of the debate last night was genuine needs a reality check. she is devoid of human emotions and compassion but she has plenty of human ambition...maybe too much.

her fake, shark-like smile she gave everytime obama talked (and she could not look him in the eyes) sent chills down my spine. i think leatherfaced has been dethroned in Tejas.

Posted by: jkallen001 | February 22, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh people come on.
The debate last night was a display of how two competitive and exceptional people in the biggest battle of their lives can be decent human beings when it counts. I can't help thinking about how great both of them were. Very few low blows. Obama was right about "silly season" and kind of right about "delusional". Hillary was right about "we're OK, no matter what", taking the high road about why she was ready, instead of saying negative things about him, and wonderful at the end with "it's about all of you, and what's best for the country." Good substantive discussion of health care and relations with Cuba. Thought it was funny watching BOTH of them tap dance around questions concerning the border fence and the bi-lingual nation. They were surprised by those questions, you could tell. That's why they kept riffing off each other on those.

Overall, they showed a lot of grace in this debate. I'm so happy with my party's candidates. Both are wonderful.

But Hillary's my pick. She was the one that really inspired me. I guess Obama's speeches are good and all, but for me, it's her ability to zero in on the ordinary humanity that binds us all that stikes me as truly special. When she shows that side of herself, she literally glows. She was absolutely beautiful last night.

Posted by: syoung1 | February 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Wake up people and quit whining about the media. Geez!

The media just follows the story. The story is Obama. Why? He has created interest, raised money, and excited people---that's their job, to report.

You think they haven't searched for dirt on him? Ha! The Chicago Tribune has done so for years. Any media outlet that found one juicy scandal would generate tons of ratings and circulation, so they are looking. There just isn't anything to find.

As for Hillary, she has blown a 30 POINT NATIONAL LEAD. How? By not finding her own voice and connecting with voters. Yes, she has years of----baggage, baggage that has to be overcome with newer voters, independents, and disenchanted moderate Republicans. Rather than finding her own voice she relied on old, stale advisers and the typical Clinton attack plan. It just didn't wash.

As for the debates, you Hillary supporters are all over the map. One person says Obama wasn't giving enough detail or policies, while a few comments down another says: "Hillary made her point succinctly in one tenth the time Obama did. At the end of his long-winded discourse, I have forgotten what the point was."

You are hearing what you want to hear.

His policy differences on immigration (requiring a secure border, fines & back taxes, plus illegals getting to the back of the line behind those already in the citizenship application line---plus reforming the system as a whole) was much more detailed that hers.

Obama's differentiation of their health care plans (she thinks it has to be forced, like medicare or social security vs. his point that affordability and access are key) was clear and concise. Yet, she continues to spread falsehoods (he will leave 20 million uninsured while I won't) that he continued to shoot down (no, anyone who wants it will get it under his plan, period). Obama had a STRONG POINT that 20% of the population in Massachusetts has been waived out of their mandatory state health care law because they can't afford it, while some still owing money in fines on top of that, showing that method won't work.

Again, are you going to say that he is too specific? Or an empty suit? Or what??!!! I just don't get it people.

You can say you don't like him. That you like Hillary. That you wish he had more experience. BUT DON"T LIE and ignore the truth about what he says and does.

As for his answer regarding whether the surge worked (Hillary dodged by saying "not as intended" but never answered the question), his reply was excellent: "yes, there is less violence now. It was a tactical victory in a big strategic mistake." This reply was BRILLIANT because it is true and cuts to the heart of his opposition to the war. He used military terminology succinctly and correctly and his entire response to the "commander in chief" question proves he can take on McCain effectively.

Or, was that all too detailed for you people??!!!

Posted by: hillmannic | February 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Evan, thanks for the reply.

Evan said, and I quote "if you're going to post the Kos list of senate accomplishments, you could post the ENTIRE list and not just cherry picked CLIN-TON's. "

Evan..;.it is not my job to show you or anyone else the accomplishments of Senator Obama. As for Cherry picking, I am surprised even that list I posted here was published here as it was quite long. Scroll up and there is the email list going around of the more "negative" accomplishments of Senator Clinton...what we call now the "Post Office List" that Obama supporters just forward as if it were just another chain letter.

Evan says: "Obama's record in the senate is, perhaps even stronger than hers...."

Perhaps? Ok, I am open minded. And what determines "strength" of legislation?

Evan asks: "whats this about ghost registering voters in florida....feeling ok?"

I posted a reference to

Perhaps this too will help you understand I am not suffering from Obama delusions, but pure American Democracy vote tampering annoyance:

Dick Morris' explicit instructions to Republicans:

Obama's Democrat for a Day training video:

Flyer for Nevada Democrat for a Day:

Evan says "thats the state (Florida) the clinton campaign is trying to change the rules after the game is finished, isn't it?

As for changing the rules, read Senator Clinton's statement of earlier today. Secondly, as for "the game being finished" I AM a disenfranchised Florida voter. The Florida voter had no say in the process, and it was rammed through the Karl-loves-Obama Republican legislature. Voter turn out was the highest in history and ALL CANDIDATES, even those who had dropped out were on the ballot. We exercised our constitutional right to vote. The DNC can Kiss my a**. In additoon, the "game" as you call it is not a game at all. It is for the Presidency of the United States. A very seriious position. I simply am voting for the candidate (of those remaining) who I feel is best SUITED to serve this country for a number of reasons. Had I believed that person to be Obama, he would have gotten my vote. I do not. Nor did I ORIGINALLY believe was Senator Clinton. But the media decided the candidates to this point, and a great many candidates more qualified dropped out. That is sad for this nation. IN addition, the "game" as you refer to it is not over until the process is finished. Senator Clinton has as much right to stay in theis "game" as any other American would have. The delegate count has not been reached. That is the end of the game. Mrs. Clinton will get my vote. I am an issues voter. I do not want our country being again driven by advisers. National Security, REAL National security is my thing....not Bush terror threats. I was in New York post 9/11 with Red Cross. I was with DHS after that. Mrs. Clinton is SIMPLY MORE QUALIFIED to handle National Security. Secondly, Mr. Obama has yet to convince ME, and MANY MORE PEOPLE, how he will wave his hand and get despots and tyrants and murders and thugs to come to the table in world peace. If he can do it, great! I am all for it, but TELL ME HOW. Last night's debate was telling. Mrs. Clinton spoke of what she has done as a road map to her abilities in the future. Mr. Obama just spoke of what is wrong, how it needs to change, listed few accomplishments to sell me on how we will achieve this and just expected me to BELIEVE he can. That is not a risk I am willing to take. It is not about "HHOPE" that things will change, it is about GETTING IT DONE. And in my book, Mrs. Clinton has held her head high under the most hideous of treatments, walked to the floor of the Senate and worked across the aisle to change America. See you in Denver.

ok, that's what i thought.

the real rationale for not allowing MI and FL votes to count as they stand now is...what would prevent EVERY state from doing whatever they feel like with the primary calendar next cycle? states are very expensive to campaign in and we don't need more dirty money in politics. the primary system may be a mess but muddied waters don't make good cleaning fluid.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

JKallen001: Yes, it would be unfair to count the primaries that already occurred. The states need a do-over with a full primary, so that all those people who you claim stayed home from the first primary can vote in the second.

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

what is with you HRC supporters???? Don't you understand how unfair it would be to allow her the votes/delegates from MI and FL considering Obama didn't campaign in either AND he wasn't even on the ballot in MI? Talk about un-democratic and also talk about disenfranchising a large amount of people who decided NOT to vote because they knew a head a time that the DNC has nullified MI and FL's delegates from the convention. Talk about trying to win at ALL COSTS. get your heads on straight and take a deep breath. so what your candidate is losing? whoever we end up with will no doubt lead us in a better direction than where we are headed NOW!

Posted by: jkallen001 | February 22, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Just a note on trolls:

if someone starts out their post with "as a..." (ie, "as a lifetime liberal democrat," "as a card carrying republican," "as an ACLU-card carrying African-American who voted for...") chances are more than even that they are NOT.

doesn't make the point you are trying to force any more (or less) believable.
sorry, somebody had to say it.

'nuff said.

Posted by: rajjjj | February 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It is a little refreshing to see that some people are begining to admit that obama is just the media candiate & the press & media has been driving his train, if he is finally the nominee will the media who have hammered Hilary Clinton for the last 3 or 4 months turn to John Mcain & have all the glowing things that were said about Obama now being said about the republican. How will this affect his campaign then & if he is elected president, will the press say that is our guy even though he is making mistakes, I DON'T THINK SO.

Posted by: jrs6776 | February 22, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me or have all of these reporters gone to pot? Remember last night's debate was co-sponsored by Univision. The answers Obama gave to the Univision commentator were very knowledgeable, truthful and very interesting and may have resonated with Hispanics viewers. I cannot believe the press is not looking into that part of the debate. I have a feeling that Obama will cut deeper into Clinton's Latino support.

Posted by: AB68 | February 22, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I am Ven Parameswaran,Scarsdale,NY. I have never seen Senator Clinton so humble when she said "It is an absolute honour...."at the end and extended her hand to Obama. It looked real. It was not a political theater. She has come to a point of no return and would like to share honour and power with Obama. I do not discount her agreeing to serve as V.P. Mrs.Clinton is highly ambitious and adores POWER. Wont be better as V.P. than a Senator? Even otherwise it is better to be in the goodbooks of future President Obama. Obama is likely to sweep Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and the rest -- she knows this. No democrat in the recent past has succeeded in bringing new blood to the party in large numbers as Obama has done. If this trend continues under his leadership he could easily beat any GOP even in the red states. The numbers speak for themselves in predominantly white states/red states. Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and others will embrace Obama and who knows, he could inspire and radiate his influence throughout the world. When that happens, american economy once again will flourish. Once the USA is popular as a superpower there is no limit to economic and social growth of the usa and the world. Africa is the richest continent in the world and both Africa and the USA can benefit thru cooperation and goodwill. But Obama cannot deliver his goods without the help and cooperation of the u.s. private industry and Wall Street. After his nomination, if he fails to embrace these constituencies he will have problems even if the democrats succeed in landslide election and larger majority in the congress and the senate. There is no govt.of the u.s.a. without private industry that thrives on capitalism, less taxes, less governemnt, more freedom, less regulation. John Maynard Keynes may not be the only choice. Capitalism will multiply jobs. Obama should reread The Wealth of Nations by Smith, father of capitalism.

Posted by: vpwaren | February 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Patti Doyle for VP !! Mark Penn for Press Secretary !

Posted by: maddogjts | February 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary just can't win in the eyes of biased media.

If she attacks Obama, she is mean and do anything to win. If she doesn't, she is sensing defeat and playing nice with the party strong man.

Her closing argument last night was touching, compassionate and right on the point - She is a brilliant and tested tough politician that can deliver the changes.

Adding Florida and Michigan this race is split even.

Posted by: jsindc | February 22, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse


if you're going to post the Kos list of senate accomplishments, you could post the ENTIRE list and not just cherry picked CLIN-TON's. Obama's record in the senate is, perhaps even stronger than hers....

whats this about ghost registering voters in florida....feeling ok? thats the state the clinton campaign is trying to change the rules after the game is finished, isn't it? ok, that's what i thought.

the real rationale for not allowing MI and FL votes to count as they stand now is...what would prevent EVERY state from doing whatever they feel like with the primary calendar next cycle? states are very expensive to campaign in and we don't need more dirty money in politics. the primary system may be a mess but muddied waters don't make good cleaning fluid.

Posted by: edvanrensyahoocom | February 22, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse


I could care less whether I'm making Democrats look good or whether you think I make childish comments -- I was asking an honest question -- thank you for drawing the line at separate drinking fountains at least.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Holy crap, you supporters of Hillary are great spinners.

Tell me, is there any state that she legitimately lost, and not because some underhanded, media-driven sneaky maneuver?

None of the streak of losses by at least 17 points was legitimate?

I'd think the group that needs to get real is NOT the Obama camp.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 22, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Jeanne1, Hillary might have mentioned lost limbs, but also recall that Obama used the emotionally-powerful word "amputations" to wake up the audience. They're both guilty of throwing the limbs around!

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama would be a great President - of Norway.

I was once willing to entertain the idea of Obama as president until this series of unfortunate discoveries:

(1) I encountered his online supporters, who don't know any of his positions, and - more frighteningly - don't want to know. Said one, "I don't want to hear the candidates talk about any boring policy issues." On almost every message board I've visited, there's an Obama fan who suggests you "visit his website" in order to know where he stands. That's not just a copout, it threatens the entire democratic process. This is an election, not a product purchase decision!

(2) I realized that the mainstream media despises Hillary now as much as it ever did during the first Clinton era and uses every opportunity to skew headlines in Obama's favor and avoid stories that might shed an unfavorable light on their man. They're a pathetic lot. Baaa.

(3) I realized that this primary season is a pitched battle for the soul of the Democratic party - if it has anything resembling a soul - away from the Clinton New Democrats towards the liberal Kennedy Democrats. DNC chair Howard Dean is naturally biased towards Obama, who is essentially HD with charisma. Which is why the FL and MI decision will probably be rigged in favor of Obama, with caucuses determining the candidate instead of the primaries. More "good luck" for Obama!

(4) We don't know anything about Obama's foreign policy plans. Last I checked he was consulting with a 37-year-old academic and the illustrious Colin Powell, who is best remembered for convincing the Senate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Hello?

(5) While he can be amazingly eloquent at times, Obama tends to "borrow" slogans and catchphrases like nobody's business, and then denies that this matters. Did MLK do this? NO! Did JFK do this? NO! Intellectually dishonest people bother me. As in everything, the devil's in the details.

(6) The Democratic party's method for selecting a candidate is inherently undemocratic. They must immediately do the following:

- Get rid of caucuses, which are "exclusive" and biased against working people. Hold a primary in each state so that people have all day to vote and every vote is counted.

- Fire everyone associated with the Florida and Michigan primary debacles, from the state to national level.

- Don't create rules people can't follow, like penalties for early primaries. The cure is much worse than the disease.

- Hold all primaries on the same day. That way, we avoid the need for useless and damaging media spin, which is biased anyway.

If the DNC doesn't move in this direction soon, I'll be voting Independent next time around.

Posted by: piglet1 | February 22, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

why does she start awkwardly laughing whenever he makes a point.

i'm biased at this point but hillary just creeps me out...

Posted by: edvanrensyahoocom | February 22, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

The Home Stretch- Hillary's Personal Alamo: The Google Effect:

Posted by: davidmwe | February 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

'Ey! Dere's a woid in Sicilian fer Hillary: cicogna. No, it ain't doity.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | February 22, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse


Ramos is perfectly welcome to drink out of any drinking fountain he wants, but you should note that he's not an "immigrant". He's a Mexican citizen who just works here for now, and who might return home to run for office.

As a Mexican citizen, he can ask questions of the candidates. However, CNN should have noted that he's a Mexican citizen, and they did not:

They also should have given equal time to a U.S. citizen to ask questions that would reflect the fact that, unlike Obama and to a certain extent Hillary, the vast majority of Americans support our laws.

Other than that, you might consider whether you're making Democrats look good with such childish comments that fail to acknowledge our laws.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 22, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse


Take off the tin foil.

Posted by: Tetris | February 22, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters. I want to understand. AS you are so gung-ho over Senator Obama's peacemaking skills and vision of unity government, what DO you have to say about his campaign front in Florida having a concerted effort to register IN FLORIDA, against the rules, "democrats for a day"...not to vote FOR HIM, but to vote AGAINST Senator Clinton.

How IS this new and different..where everyone has a voice. It IS the epitome of gaming the system. A trait you often accuse Senator Clinton of doing.

Please respond.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's new campaign slogan:


Or maybe her fear tactics: "who is better to lead in this DANGEROUS world"

Sounds like "change" to me.

Posted by: digitaldonovan | February 22, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary did have a good close although I started having suspicions that it wasn't genuine especially when she was going a little over the top when she went on and on about seeing soldiers who've lost limbs...was she finally acknowledging that she can't win other than to remove herself graciously.

NOT!...The very next day, she gives an interview claiming that she made a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in MI and FL but that she never agreed that they shouldn't be seated as disingenous,this is why even people who liked her before the campaign now find her completely distasteful.

Bill and Hillary have NO class and that's the last impression people are going to have of this couple unless they wisen up.

Hillary better take another look at her falling poll numbers with her own NY state constituents...keep up the lying & nastiness and she's going to have to worry about defending her Senate seat.

Posted by: Jeanne1 | February 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse


It is you who needs a sanity test. Instead of quoting authors and concepts whose contents you do not understand, I suggest you do some research and learn more about both capitalism and socialism, so that you can tell the difference. Our country is neither, but our entire political spectrum is so far from socialism, that even the most right-wing European parties would be considered far-left in our electoral landscape. There is no other place on earth that is further from the concept of socialism than the United States, regardless of how loud you and your allies screech. It appears y'all's exposure to the world is more limited that you care to admit.

Furthermore, Barack Obama is not a socialist, he believes in the free market and individual rights to property. Standing for a government that seeks to be effective in solving problems does not a socialist make, but rather a responsible politician, irrespective of political orientation.

Posted by: AgentG | February 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary showed that she may bow out more gracefully than anticipated. She needs to pull back her spending while her supporters are still donating if she wishes to get her $5m back.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 22, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Dont feel sorry for Hillary. If this loud mouth, no substance, ignorant politician Obama wins the nomination FEEL SORRY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

Remember:IT AINT OVER TIL IT'S OVER!. Obama, Georgie Porgie, the master of Deceipt will be right behind you with Dead Eye Cheney and Nazi Karl Rove. OPRAH IS GETTING IN OVER HER HEAD! wHAT A gROUP!!!!!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | February 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't the media check with Mass. voters who elected Governor Deval, the Obama wordsmith, and ask why, even with Teddy, Caroline, Kerry, and big $ media blitz, they did not go a 'second time' for a wordsmith and went with Hillary? Isn't there a story there in Mass.?

Posted by: cassidyford | February 22, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

you have to be a moron not to realize what this woman is doing. The last speech last night in the debate was all staged to make the people in Texas feel sorry about her, she is an expert about pulling this kind of stunts before a primary ,she did the same thing before the new Hampshire primary, she has a crocodile smile , this woman will never give up until she destroys the unity in the democratic party

Posted by: capskip | February 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps the most telling spot was post debate with Hardball's Johnathan Alter. In discussing the demographic Mr. Obama had attracted, it was as follows:

To paraphrase, Alter said he (Obama) had all the bases covered for his election with the "Three R's" "Republicans, Religion and Race"...Matthews tried, I believe, to ask about Women, to which Alter replied Obama "didn't need women to win"

glad to know that.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

LarkinGMead is an idiot. Period.

Socialistic (sic) state? You mean Hillary and/or Obama will take control of Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Citgo?

Pray tell, how would he go about doing this? Of course, they'd have to dissolve the Constitution before doing this or attempt to do this only to have a conservative Supreme Court rule against them.

Appropriately, review the Supreme Court Case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube before spouting off your nonsense.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 22, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please pass the toast....

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

As a lifetime liberal democrat I have watched with disgust as the press has maligned HRC and deitized BHO. The college kids have put down their ipods to chant at "rock concerts" for a con-artist. Although BHO admits he does not speak of substantive issues at these events because they are all about "hope." Not one statement or idea has been BHO's own...if he didn't pilfer it from HRC he has the unmitigated gall to be indignant that anyone dare question him when the truth is reported about his speeches!!! Even his "friend" comes to his aid with the statment that he had permission to use his words...although no credit was given at the time of those utterances. Everybody buys it. How gullible you are. Time after time he shows you exactly what he is and you refuse to believe. Reminds me of another guy about eight years ago...look what we have had to endure since then.

Posted by: eileen6 | February 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Is she hoping for a VP nod?"

While many in the democratic party would love this, politically it would be suicide for Obama. The foremost reason for Clinton's inability to take the nomination is HIGH NEGATIVES. She has no strategy to win over Independents, much less Republicans. Obama has been able to attract these groups.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they must acknowledge that HRC is kryptonite and adding her to an Obama ticket would surely bring out the Conservative Republicans not to vote for McCain as much as it means a vote AGAINST Clinton.

Posted by: afgooey74 | February 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama's performance in last night's debate did nothing to assuage my previous misgivings about a Obama presidency.

It was painful and boring listening to Obama last night. He doesn't realize that debating and oratory skills are just not the same. Hillary made her point succinctly in one tenth the time Obama did. At the end of his long-winded discourse, I have forgotten what the point was.

Obama's policy tactic has always been to wait and see what Hillary's is and then to tweak it and claim it as his own. This way he can use his oratory to set them apart, rather than on policy issues. He flip-flops depending on the target audience. Last night it was regarding Cuba's change of guard. At one of his earlier speeches, Obama talked about providing health insurance to whites and blacks. What about the other ethnic groups? I guess there weren't any Hispanics or Asians in the audience, so he did not think it was necessary to mention them. Remember the comment about not taking guns away from people when he was campaigning in the West and then sprouted rhetoric on gun control after the shooting in his home state?

The war vote is stale and irrelevant. People forget that the US and New York had suffered a major terrorist attack. Faced with that and whatever the intelligence was available at the time, it would have been unpatriotic not to have supported the war. For Obama to argue that he was against the war all along (that is why he is so much better at ending the war), when his opinions at the time had no real consequence on policy decisions, is much like his "present" votes - irrelevant. To focus on what has been, could have been, is a waste of time and energy.

It is amazing to me as an academician that Obama can say on national television that the plagiarism criticism is silliness. Do we really want a president (again!) who will blatantly bend the rules to suit him at will? What kind of message is that to send to the young people of this country? Nothing wrong in using someone else's words as long as they are acknowledged. Journalists/writers/academicians know that if they had put "borrowed" words verbatim into writing without appropriate acknowledgment, their careers would be over. It's a thin line between speaking borrowed words (without acknowledgment) and saying that's acceptable and publishing borrowed words (without acknowledgment) and saying that's not OK.

Obama's answer to the last debate question reflects again his self-absorbedness. In fact, his life story is not full of trials and tribulations: he had a supportive family growing up, lived in a multicultural environment, went to a good private school, followed by stints at Ivy League universities. Even his drug use by his own admission might have been embellished since the New York Times was unable to find anyone from his past that remembered him using drugs to any extent. I don't see his background as being anything like the inner city or rural African Americans that are championing his candidacy.

In response to the last question, Hillary did not speak of her own problems (why go over old ground?) but put problems in a broader and national context. Only the media and Obama supporters would have interpreted her response and graciousness as concession.

Posted by: alee21 | February 22, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if I have ever agreed with this author before, but we do agre that Hillary's closing remarks in last nights debate was not Valedictory. I didn't believe that at the time and I didn't by in when pundits started to describe it as such during the post debate analysis. I may have started to waver slightly on that thought at some point while reading so many posts on the blogs last night,until I read a story about the e-mail that Clinton's Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, had sent out immediately following the debate. Apparently my initial gut reaction about the whole closing statement being contrived rather than heartfelt was correct after all.

Was that statement "plagiarized" from both Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Sure it was; at least if you accept the Clinton Campaign's definition of "plagiarism" that they used in an effort to smear Senator Obama earlier in the week. I couldn't have cared less about Hillary borrowing some words or ideas from her husband or fron Mr. Edwards,if it wasn't for the hypocracy of her campaign once again trying to have it both ways. It takes a lot of gall to attack your opponent with a charge to begin the debate and then end that same debate by practicing the same behavior that you used to attack him an hour earlier. If not for that amazing bit of hypocracy, I wouldn't have found anything wrong with Hillary "borrowing" from her husband, and even would have overlooked her using the words of a former opponent.

But the real issue concerning Hillary's closing remarks should be centered around their meaning and their authenticity. I believe that she once again managed to dupe the pundits who fell hook, line and sinker, for her act and came up with this incredible scenario that she had a "human moment" and realizing that the campaign was lost, was attempting to sound Valedictory or had made some spontaneous decision that if all was lost, she was at least going to lay the ground work to go out with dignity. Like the author, I know the Clintons and this is not something that they have in them. I resisted the urge to buy what the pundits were all saying, no matter how much I wanted to believe it could be true. The fact that she "borrowed" the ideas, and in large part the words from both her husband and John Edwards tells the story that this statement was plannned in advance to get the response it did initially. The e-mail that was sent out with blazing speed by Wolfson after the debate punctuates that premeditated description of the event. With any luck, someone will place a video of that performance side by side with Hillary crying in that New Hampshire coffee shop on Utube or somewhere so that we can all watch the remarkable similarities betwenHillary's act in each case where she has appeared to have a softer, "human" moment that appeals so much to women (and some other) voters at a time when Hillary is down and possibly on the way out.

I don't by the act. I think Clinton's campaign should have left the ending of the debate alone and left voters wondering about whether or not the moment was genuine instead of trying to "hammer it home" with their e-mails which only serve to prove it was just another staged Hillary event. I trust that most voters will eventually see Hillary's closing remarks for what they really were; another attempt to distort and deceive voters and a trick to win their vote. Look for more of the same; negative attack ads against Senator Obama, based on lies and distortions, and possibly a change of direction (hoping to catch Senator Obama off guard with the sudden switch) and maybe some real firewroks in the debate on Tuesday.

Posted by: diksagev | February 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse


Are you for, or against, separate drinking fountains for citizens vs. non-citizens?

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Thanks itsallsogoofy for reminding us that Obama helped pass "comprehensive immigration reform" in the Senate. You know, the bill that only gave the government 24 hours to deny someone's application, otherwise they'd receive an infinitely renewable visa. The one that would have allowed illegal alien gang members to become citizens. The one that would have allowed some number of terrorists to get legal residence as long as they passed a basic screening process. That one.

But, Obama went further, even marching with illegal aliens at an event organized by those linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties.

As for last night's "debate", Dan Balz is too much of a lightweight to note that CNN failed to disclose a key affiliated of one of their questioners:

Maybe Dan Balz could contact CNN and ask them why they failed to note that important affiliation.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 22, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

it is nice to see the next great political movement use the old political movement tactics like "Democrat for a Day" as promoted by Mr. Obama's campaign in Nevada, Florida (where he was prohibited from campaigning)and now Texas. His encouragement to have Republicans joing his rank-and-file for votes for JUST ONE DAY to beat Senator Clinton, then they can go back to being republicans, not only gives him a dishonest win, but it is a slap in the face to true Democrats and the DNC. There is nothing here that I can say that will convince Mr. Obama's supporters that this is no different, no more inspiring, nor show no more leadership than the thugs of the old Chicago mob. For more information, including Karl Rove's appeal for Republicans to go vote for Obama for the day, and the skewed numbers and the bamboozling of the American voter that is being supported by the media, go to taylormarsh dot com and see for your self, in video, in their own words. Welcome to the new ways of Washington in the OObama Administration.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse


i may be too late for you to read this, but hopefully not. we aren't the united states of the media... but one of our greatest leaders thomas jefferson once said (and i don't know the quote line for line, so i'm just paraphrasing) that if he had to choose between a government and a free press, he'd take the media... and they were much more partisan back then.

and hillary has received less than 50% of the vote, not more.

Posted by: zackhn | February 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Larkin Mead-

what it says about our generation is that we don't buy into the "politics of fear," and we aren't xenophobic. it says we're open minded and open to inspiration... rather than assuming things always have to be this way because they've always been this way (because frankly they haven't been this way for that long... societies and the politics that go with them are constantly evolving... we are just the next evolution). terrorism is a real threat, just as real a threat as it was before 9/11... but terrorism will continue to exist no matter how long the war on terror continues... if anything the war will create more terrorists by alienating and disenfranchising more people. get out of your box. do a little traveling. what's out there in the world might surprise you, and actually make you a little more compassionate.

Posted by: zackhn | February 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

This is from the Daily Kos. 'The Heart of a Champion.'
A partial list of HRC's accomplishments.

Hillary created a teacher recruitment program to bring outstanding teachers into low-income communities.
She sponsored legislation to grow childcare funding to $11.2 billion.
She fought off dramatic cuts to Medicaid and SCHIP.
She passed legislation with Lindsay Graham for expanded health services for military families.
She made sure that six million children have health insurance through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
She fought for and won health benefits for our troops in the National Guard and Reserves.
She fought to preserve combat pay for injured National Guard and Reserve soldiers and passed a law establishing health tracking for returning soldiers.
She passed the Kids Car and Safety Act.
She successfully stopped efforts by the FDA to keep Plan B off the market.
She led the effort to get rid of the head of the FDA.
She held the Senate's first committee ever on environmental justice.
She fought to extend unemployment benefits, and won.
She successfully advocated for education reform.
She fought to make abortion safe, legal and rare.
She wrote and secured passage of legislation to assist family caregivers in accessing affordable and high quality respite care.
She fought to make sure the medicines we give our children are safe.
She was the first US Senator to label what was happening in Darfur genocide.
Her work on behalf of the environment and the health of first responders after 9/11 is nothing short of heroic.
She fought for and got enhanced body armor for our troops.
She got the Pentagon to respond to the Congress in terms of planning for Iraq withdrawal. The list goes on.

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I did not mean "11 straight wins" (New Mexico broke Obama's winning streak).

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

Hillary Clinton Friday denied she was contemplating defeat for her White House bid, after she paid a wistful tribute to Barack Obama which some observers saw as an admission of possible failure.
Reeling from her Democratic rival's 11 straight wins in nominating contests, Clinton fought back against the perception that her performance Thursday in a high-stakes debate in Austin, Texas, had a valedictory tone.

"I intend to win, obviously. I'm working very hard, and Ohio and Texas are critical states," the New York Senator said in an interview with ABC News today.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse


I define Hillary's relevant "experience" as that of a high-placed insider, getting things done via the Legislature from the Executive branches at both State and federal levels (now, of course, she was neither Governor of Arkansas nor President of the United States, but she wasn't any ordinary First Lady either -- more like a Super-Chief of Staff). That is, indeed, EXPERIENCE -- whether you like it or not.

Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

As a black man and one very proud of Senator Obama's success to date, I cannot however argue that he is the more qualified of the two democratic candidates. In actuality, a two-term seasoning as the VP would have been great for him and the Democratic party, with the premise being that they could have controlled the white house for the next 16 years.
However, it would appear that they are others with their own agendas, which are being propagated by media have once again determined the potential leadership for this country.
Let's at least hope that he is no George Bush.

Posted by: sheriong | February 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama has 11 years total of legislative experience (5 more than Hillary) In just the US Senate, Obama has passed into law in THREE years (with bills that he authored or co-authored) 5 pieces of substantive legislation. Hillary has passed into law in SIX years time, 6 substantive bills that she has authored or coauthored. He essentially has accomplished the same job in half the time. Although Hillary has about 26 bills that have become law, 20 of them are things like "name post office after Thurgood Marshall" and "Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship." Here are the substantive legislation each has passed:

1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
2. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
3. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
4. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
5. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

1. the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
3.The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4.The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
5.The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)

I fail to see how the media is being kinder to Obama. They parrot her so-called "experience" relentlessly, never ONCE asking her or her surrogates to define it. She benefits GREATLY from media laziness.

Posted by: itsallsogoofy | February 22, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I am not voting for "President of a World Movement" as a blogger here suggested, but for a seasoned and skillful POLITICIAN who can do the job with strength and compassion. It was clear to this viewer that while Mrs. Clinton, for the most part, gave clear and concise answers to specific questions, and had the fortitude to finish when she was cut-off on more than one occasion by a commerical break or the anchor, I found myself losing Mr. Obama's train of thought and line of delivery with his answers. Mr. Obama is a great speaker, but I have noticed over and over and over again that without prepared remarks or a teleprompter, he is not on his best game. The reaction monitors the networks showed concur. Mrs. Clinton's dig was, I think we all agree, flat and appeared uncomfortable to her as well. That is Hillary in a box. The ending statement was Hillary Clinton at her most human. This is the smartest, brightest and most well-traveled and involved candidate we have had on the Democratic side for many years.IS she without sin? No. Is Obama? How do we know. The media in general has been irresponsible in their vetting of him for all of us to see. If there is no "there, there" then let us know. If there is, the press will be culpable and will be required to take responsibility for this lack of vetting if there is and he wins. The fact that we are not more thoroughly scrutinizing a candidate this close to the nomination, a candidate who makes people clap when he blows his nose, has websites dedicated to his being the second coming, and who has movie actresses swearing to pick up cups in his path is frightening...

If Mr. Obama is the leader of a world movement, then why does he need an election to prove it?

Posted by: spacegirlart | February 22, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

She's a warrior and this is another round in the war. She did it well. She was talking past the primaries to the campaign against McCain and she was saying that the country itself was the prize no matter who wins. It was pretty sharp campaigning and his response worked, too.

Posted by: karenfern | February 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

She's a warrior and this is another round in the war. She did it well. She was talking past the primaries to the campaign against McCain and she was saying that the country itself was the prize no matter who wins. It was pretty sharp campaigning and his response worked, too.

Posted by: karenfern | February 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is "toast" and Osama Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, the most frightening revelation in American history.
What is very disturbing is that Senator Obama is receiving most of his support from the college crowd and the young educated professionals. What does this say about the intellectual capacity of this new generation?

Barack Obama is a slick Socialist, indoctrinated into the Karl Marx ideology. The young liberal Democrats have succumbed to the teachings of the Socialist agenda, and, I predict that if Barack Hussein Obama sits in the oval office as commander-in-chief, this nation will completely fall within two years after his assuming the office of President of the United States.

Barack Obama is a very, very, dangerous man. It is imperative that his agenda be exposed over the next several months. I believe it will be, but, will the young, educated liberals heed the realities of this man's agenda?

The prospect of an Obama/Clinton ticket should send chills up the spines of every freedom loving American citizen, and, understand that under a Socialistic form of government, we will all become "wards of the state", beholden to the edicts of it's oppressive regime. We cannot have government paid for health care/socialized medicine and free college educations for all. To do this, the Socialists will "gut the defense budget, impose huge taxes on corporations and small business thus creating more job losses and smaller pay checks for all working middle class Americans. Nothing is free. Someone will have to pay for these social give-aways and if the liberals don't give a damn about the safety and security of this nation and the continued threat of Islamic-Fascism, then, go ahead, vote for Obama/Clinton.

Al Queda, Hamas and all the other terrorists in this world and in this country in particular, are chomping at the bit this very minute, waiting for this country to go Socialistic. If this nation desires to collapse into bloody chaos, death and destruction and perhaps nuclear annihilation, then vote for Obama/Clinton.

Republicans, (moderate and conservative) must unite to stop this insane gravitation toward a Socialistic state and pray that those who are of a liberal leaning will choose safety and security over decadence and hedonism. The preservation of this precious Republic and our democratic principles depend on the choice we make in November '08. I will stake my own life on all that I have just written.

Posted by: LarkinGMead | February 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

It is no longer possible for HRC to win the nomination, and she knows that.

If I use CNN's count, she is behind by approximately 140 pledged delegates, with less than 1100 left to allocate (including some already voted for, but unaccounted). That means she would need to get more than 56 percent of the rest of the popular vote, or to put it another way, a greater than 12-point lead in the rest of the contests in order to pull even in pledged delegates. That isn't possible. She also knows that if the super delegates steal the nomination from the first viable black candidate, when he clearly got the popular vote, it will destroy the Democratic Party, as well as her chances in the general election. I believe we would see riots - maybe not as bad as 1968, but real riots.

Her only chance to become President is to withdraw from this race as soon as she can do it gracefully, and to shoot for 2012 or 2016. That is what she is clearly preparing to do. I'll be surprised if she's still in the race by March 6. The next interesting question will be whether she's the Vice Presidential candidate, and how her supporters would react to that

Posted by: fid4wp | February 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I know the audience noticed, but did any of you guys notice who Sen. Obama would say he "had to add just one more thing", then go on to state the very point Clinton had just made, attempting to claim it as his own? Audience members were laughing and whispering!

Posted by: jack9 | February 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

You all seem to forge the fifteen states and American voices yet to be heard.

Those are Americans not to be disrespected and underestimated. There's a long way to go to the convention. The media is more and more like Obama. Saying things and thinking the American people are going to believe them just because he / they said it. He and the press insult the American people daily. Following the Pied Piper float of words and no resume.

This is NOT the United States of TheMedia.

It's the United States of America.

The media needs to stop trying to hijack the Democratic process. It's getting real, real annoying to the 50+% of Americans who have voted for her. She is brilliant, articulate and in touch with hard working (so called by the media "Dunkin Donut, Lunch Bucket" democrats. That's a huge insult to over half your readership.

Keep dreaming and spinning your tales with Obama. Why don't you go do some REAL reporting instead of influencing this election. How about the back room arm twisting by Obama's boys of the black delegates backing Clinton. They've spoken up - but you can't seem to write about anything but your fantasy ending.

50% - 50% is far from over.

Posted by: Thinker | February 22, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm an avid Obama supporter, but I do feel sympathy for Hillary. In hindsight, her campaign was mismanaged with its singular focus on big, delegate-rich states and an endgame planned for February 5th. If she'd been campaigning against a man wanting to lead the country versus a man who is now leading a global movement, she might have won the nomination.

If Hillary doesn't win by HUGH margins in Texas and Ohio, I hope she continues to follow the high road she discovered during last night's debate and suspend her campaign for the sake of the Democratic party. She may even get a well-deserved invitation to serve in Obama's cabinet, if he's elected president.

Posted by: Seneca7 | February 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The pro-Obama "powerful narrative" of the Austin American-Statesman clearly evidenced the Democratic nomination process has been undermined by the biased media against Hillary Clinton. The media power of the biased media has swayed voters to Obama. The media power of the biased media has moved the polls in his favor.

Hillary Clinton is battling the combined force of not only the biased media but also the millions of dollars being raked in from the Obama cult. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not a cult leader.

Hillary Clinton made no "tactical blunder" about Obama's plagiarism. That is a biased media spin. The boos obviously came from the Obama cultists who dominated the audience.

Obama lifted rhetoric and passed it off as his own. He perpetuated a fraud on the audience. He owes them an apology. Glibly dismissing his plagiarism shows Obama's slickness and fundamental character flaw of dishonesty.

Posted by: crat3 | February 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

How many more times will Clinton have to lose before the press stops giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt?

Posted by: chrismad | February 22, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The pro-Obama "powerful narrative" of the Sustin American-Statesman clearly evidences that the Democratic nomination process has been undermined by the biased media against Hillary Clinton. The media power of the biased

Posted by: crat3 | February 22, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-O

Only question, will it be O'Billary, or Hillosama?

My bet, and hopes for a GOP Victory;

O'Billary Vs. McComney.

Two Loser Senators, and a Heavy Load of Dirty Laundry named Bill, against a Certified Hero and his "Brain"! ;~)

Unfortunately, when the Smoke clears, we will still have two Loser Senators.

Maybe, they will finally learn how to do that Job first! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | February 22, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

One has to wonder if perhaps the reason why she isn't going for the throat when her back is against the wall is that she knows now that she's probably not going to win. What this looks like to me is like Hillary Clinton preparing to lose and ensuring that she does so in as graceful a manner as possible.

Is she hoping for a VP nod? Or just making sure that the man who is about to become the Big Dog and leader of the Democratic party doesn't hold a grudge against her for the next 4 to 8 years as President? One way or another, her tone last night suggests to me that this is now a candidate who has shifted over to preparing to lose credibly rather than fighting to win.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 22, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company