Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Agrees to Debates with Clinton

By Shailagh Murray
OMAHA, Neb. -- Sen. Barack Obama agreed to two new debates with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and saw his post-Super Tuesday fundraising haul climb to over $7 million, as he hopscotched across the country seeking a trio of wins on Saturday.

Obama and Clinton will face off on Tuesday, Feb. 26, at Cleveland State University, in a debated hosted by NBC News and WKYC, the NBC affiliate in Cleveland. Although terms haven't been settled, Obama aides said the candidates would also meet in Texas, which votes the same day as Ohio, March 4.

The Democratic spotlight turns next to Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington, and today Obama traveled the long arc between the three states, looking to expand his delegate count and add new states to his victory column, while building momentum headed into the delegate-rich "Potomac primaries" on Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

At a morning rally at Tulane University in New Orleans, Obama pledged new resources to help New Orleans recover from Hurricane Katrina. He toured a local school and visited the Creole restaurant Dooky Chase, flooded in the 2005 storm but now looking as good as new.

Owner Leah Chase patted Obama on his stomach and told him, "Get a little gumbo right quick. You're too frail baby. We gotta fatten you up a bit."

At a late afternoon rally in Omaha, the senator was endorsed by Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, who had stayed neutral before his state's caucuses, although his wife Mari Culver had endorsed former Sen. John Edwards. Then he flew to Seattle, where he will campaign Friday.

The Obama campaign is upbeat about its prospects for Saturday. Louisiana has a large African American population, and both Washington and Nebraska are caucus states, benefiting Obama's grassroots organizing style.
But Clinton is making her own play for Nebraska and Washington, where a total of 102 delegates are at stake -- a number almost New Jersey in scale. Chelsea Clinton campaigned in Lincoln on Thursday, and Clinton announced ad buys in Washington and Nebraska, including a spot featuring former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey. She also won endorsements from both Washington senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

The new ads signaled that Clinton may be pulling out of a financial crunch that forced her to borrow $5 million from herself. Speaking to reporters on the flight between Louisiana and Nebraska, Obama suggested the loan had made the Clinton family finances fair game.

"I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from," Obama said. "But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down. I've disclosed my income tax returns."

He also acknowledged his own fundraising edge based on a army of online donors who contribute regularly, often in small increments.

"There's no doubt she has not generated the kind of grassroots enthusiasm that we have," said Obama. "It's not for lack of trying. She's got a former president actively fundraising for her, as well as people like Terry McAuliffe. But we've created this base where people send $25 checks, $50 checks on an ongoing basis, and that is an enormous advantage for our campaign."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 7, 2008; 7:28 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kerrey Appears in New Clinton Ad
Next: James Dobson Preparing to Endorse Huckabee

Comments

What a democracy we have people discussing politics all over the country.Then there are some of you that won't stop at anything if only you could get people to see things your way. Senator Obama is an open book, the things that you think you are disclosing doesn't matter to a lot of people. If they believe in his message. What really throw me through a loop is so many people have forgotten the murky water that surround the Clintons, it will never go away,mark my words. You speak of Obama possibly doing things dishonest,when we know factually the Clintons are the King and Queen of"I Did Not Sleep With... what Whitewater?" Be very careful trying to convince people that Senator Obama is not right for the job.See where it got Bill,the election totaly turned around.

Posted by: juppiecat | February 13, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

What a democracy we have people discussing politics all over the country.Then there are some of you that won't stop at anything if only you could get people to see things your way. Senator Obama is an open book, the things that you think you are disclosing doesn't matter to a lot of people. If they believe in his message. What really throw me through a loop is so many people have forgotten the murky water that surround the Clintons, it will never go away,mark my words. You speak of Obama possibly doing things dishonest,when we know factually the Clintons are the King and Queen of"I Did Not Sleep With... what Whitewater?Be very careful trying to convince people that Senator Obama is not right for the job.See where it got Bill,the election totaly turned around.

Posted by: juppiecat | February 13, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I am a black woman in Florida, and I am voting for Hillary. The only thing that Obama is offering is a blanket speach about "change" and "hope," and that he is "for the people." Blah, blah, blah. That's fluff. How is he going to produce change. Let him tell us that. He has offered very little decisive answers to anything. Do you really think that it's that easy? And, if he was for the people. Why didn't he come to Florida, instead of snubbing us? Why? Because we had nothing to offer him. He showed me that he is not all about the people. He is all about the vote. He also showed that he is manipulative of our race by giving that ML King speach, and had the nerve to try to sound like him. That was an insult to our race. The minute he is in mixed company, do you think that he will speak that way. No. So, don't think that he is any different than or better than any other candidate. That job will overwhelm him. He talks a good blanket game, but he is not ready or polished enough to set this country back on course. McCain would have us still spiraling downward, but Hillary will give it balance. For those who talk about lies and all of that. Who doesn't? I'm sure you do to. Do you think Obama is being truthful about everything?

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | February 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

diksagev says "This is NOT a threat by Senator Obama".

I personally say Obama threaten that his voters just might not want to vote for Hillary. Then he stopped (it was obvious he was angry.)

I do think he will change his tone if he loses. Obama is truly a magnificent speaker.

I dislike the focus that his great charisma and vision is all it's going to take to change the country. Paul Krugman wrote he found this bologne too. Looking at history Franklin Roosevelt had to battle head on with the Right Wing to make reforms. FDR had a vision. He knew he would have to fight for it, and negotiate where needed.

I try and tell myself Obama is just doing this to be "effective". But then, I decide I don't like many of his supporters for wanting to "believe" he can work magic. I find their hope in magic for our major problems dangerous too.

You DO realize Bush is about to leave the country in an economic crisis. Senator Webb has been warning it might be so bad, it could be compared with a stron depression.

Do we really want someone less experienced and relying on it all being easy to fix because he has great charisma like "Kennedy"?

Obama would be smart to back off during the economic recession that IS int he pipeline for the next President, then make another try at it.

I might even vote for him if he changes his campaign style in the future (to where it is not based on attacks. He'd have to find someone other than the Clintons to attack.... and then claim underdog status.)


Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you really think Obama is pure on the campaign contributions?

I've lost my main link. But here's just one small example:.
.

Here the NY Times documents how after claiming he sponsered legislation to make the nuclear industry safer, he caved completely to ask for "voluntary" reporting.

Then the SAME company he was supposedly regulating gave him very large donations for senator and running for President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers. "

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 8, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"I also HATE that Obama keeps threatening that his supporters won't support her if she wins the nomination but hers will support him!"

This is NOT a threat by Senator Obama. He has stated repeatedly that he and Hillary were friends before the campaign and they will be friends after the campaign. He has supported a united Party once the nomination has been won. Don't ne paranoid and spread this kind of filth toward Obama just because the Clintons failed to support the last two Democratic candidates in elections against George W Bush (possibly to keep Hillary from having to run against a Democratic encumbant or wait another 4 years?). If Senator Obama is saying anything at all about his supporters not supporting Hillary, he is merely stating a well-known fact. There are many voters out there who would have never supported Hillary Clinton whether Barack Obama was running against her for the nomination or not. Regardless of who ran against her in the Primaries and regardless of who she might face in a general election, there are a great many voters who will simply NOT support Hillary and Bill's return to the White House, and that has nothing to do with Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton is a negative person with tons of political baggage who is every bit as devisive (maybe moreso) as George W Bush. I know that a lot of Clinton supporters mistake statements that people will NOT vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination to be "threats" from Obama supporters that are based on sour grapes if he loses - but those feelings run much deeper than that and do not involve Obama - and they are definitely not just empty THREATS. Hillary is unacceptable to a great many Americans who will not vote for her at any cost and that will hurt the Democratic Party in a general election (especially among Independent voters) if Hillary is the nominee.

Posted by: diksagev | February 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I am sad. Obama is the "divisive" one. Watch him closely. He is ruining the democratic party. WATCH HIM.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871

Posted by: mjno | February 7, 2008 07:59 PM

Thank you for providing that slanted account. It took me all of 20 seconds to find one that is a little more balanced.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22839654/

How many shady dealings did Hillary have with clients and other aquaintances from her days at the Rose Law Firm? How many of them did she take to Washington DC with her and place in the Clinton Administration? How many of them were involved with Hillary in scandals that racked our government and how many of them ended up in Prison (to be later pardoned for their sins by Bill Clinton)?

You Clinton supporters should really be more careful about going to negative when there are 30 names and incidents that are equally damaging and far worse regarding the same type of shady characters. It seems this isn't the first time that a Clinton has been seen smiling in a picture with a criminal that that had claimed to not know or had never met. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Posted by: diksagev | February 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Iowatreasures' attack against Obama's church is among the lowest of the low in political attacks. I think that's lower than even the Republicans want to go. That one may even be beneath Carl Rove, though that may be stretching it a bit. I can't wait to see the day when this kind of tactics backfires big time and turns voters against the campaign responsible for such garbage. The backlash from the Clintons' attacks against Obama in South Carolina may be a hopeful sign. But to attack a church? That kind of thing may be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" with voters. I don't think McCain would do it. He's already got enough problems trying to appease the religious right.

Posted by: PastorGene | February 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton suddenly wanted 5 debates not because she is the better debater but because:

1. With her campaign's financial problems she needs the free exposure.
2. She wants to take Obama off the campaign trail where he is most effective, face-to-face with the voters.
3. She had a huge head start across the country, and the more time Obama spends campaigning in the states, the better he is able to overcome her advantage in name recognition, organization, and familiarity to the voters. As in the case with Michigan and Florida, no campaigning works to her advantage. She wants to limit the voters' exposure to Obama and maintain her advantage.
4. She also knows that the debates allow the media to control the message rather than the candidates, and that also works to her advantage. (Now, if they could have a real debate, where you take the media out of the picture and let the candidates respond directly to each other and question each other, that would be a format where Obama could excel.)

Obama did not "dodge" debates. He agreed to 2 debates. Five would have been too much time to spend on debates, which are less effective means of getting his message out since few undecided voters will be watching them anyway, and those who have made up their mind are not likely to be swayed by the debates.

Really, I don't think the debates serve much of any good purpose. Other than the volatile South Carolina debate, they are mostly just a rehashing of the same things over and over again, with each candidate responding to whatever questions with his or her talking points. And other than Iraq, the differences between the two of them on issues are too nuanced for most undecided voters to grasp anyway.

Iraq is the sole exception. Clinton was waffled on that issue and tried to please everyone with poll-tested answers. Obama has been very clear and strong about his opposition to the war. Clinton tries to undermine that by saying that Obama has voted to fund the war, but the truth is that he voted to fund the troops, not the war. And among Democratic candidates, only Kucinich did not vote for the funding. (Part of me wants to agree with Kucinich that to cut off funding would end the war. But then another part of me believes Bush would leave the troops there, with or without adequate funding. That's the dilemma all Democrats (and Republicans) against the war were faced with. Of course, if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had been strong enough to say to Bush, "You are not going to get any funding bills without a timetable for withdrawal," and to stick to that, who knows?) But in any case, voting to fund the troops does not mean Obama changed from his position against the war.

Two debates in 4-5 weeks is plenty. Five would be a senseless and ineffective distraction from campaigning in the several states with immanent primaries and caucases. The only debate that may have made any difference in how people voted was perhaps the S. Carolina one, which apparently swayed more people to Obama rather than to Clinton. The other debates made little impact on the process. So having a debate every week would be a huge waste of time. Most people would get tired of them and tune out anyway.

Clinton supporters will dismiss all of this with the silly idea that Obama is afraid to debate her or that she does better in the debates (which the vote counts do not support). But my reply to them is: See #1-#4 above. That explains it all.

Posted by: PastorGene | February 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

this is outlandish Eric whoeveryouare:
"I also HATE that Obama keeps threatening that his supporters won't support her if she wins the nomination but hers will support him! So the guy is saying "Screw you! We'll give the election to the republicans if I don't get my way!" WHAT KIND OF ARROGANT JERK IS THAT???!"
The kind who is telling you the truth. It's amusing to me when you people call him arrogant - he is one of the most humble men who has ever run for President. I mean, doesn't it take a bit of ego to WANT to be President? I WILL vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but as an Obama volunteer, I can tell you that these new voters who have registered ONLY to support him and are coming out in droves, will not vote for Hillary. People who have been disinfranchised by the "establishment" and candidates who represent it, and young inspired college kids are telling me they don't want the same old divided Washington partisan politics and that is what we will have with The Clintons.
Once again, if Rezco is the only thing they've got on him (oh, and those kindergarden papers) - I don't think there is much more to say. He has donated any money from Rezco to charity.
And any time anyone says Rezco, I just think yeah, and what about Norman Hsu? Remeber Hillary had to give the money he donated to her to charity as well? Let me refresh for you, from Wiki:
Norman Hsu is a convicted pyramid investment promoter who associated himself with the apparel industry. His business activities were intertwined with his role as a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party, and he gained notoriety after suspicious patterns of bundled campaign contributions were reported in 2007 to the Clinton Campaign. Subsequently he was discovered to have been a long-time fugitive in connection with a 1992 fraud conviction. After turning himself in to California authorities in 2007 he fled the state again and was quickly recaptured.>>
Yeah, the Clintons have a veritable warehouse of slime - President McCain anyone?

Posted by: sheridan1 | February 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain to me the definition of "Experience" which is being utilized by Hillary Clinton. I am totally unaware of any political experience which makes her more qualified than Obama to be President. From a factual perspective, they are both Ivy League educated attorneys with similar terms of office in the United States Senate. Is it felt that because Hillary is married to former President Clinton, she is more qualified to be the "Chief Executive Officer" of this country? In her role as "wife of the President" she was ineffective in using her influence to garner support for Universal Health Care among the legislators. What makes one think that she can get this approved as the President? While Universal Health Care is desirable, the probability that it will come to fruition is highly unlikely. Non of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobbyist are going to disappear in the middle of the night because there is a new President in the White House. Presidential candidates are doing what they do best which is appeal to the emotions of the masses. Which candidate will reach across the aisles to build consensus and garner support to tackle the issues which can be realistically solved? I don't want to hear the "PIE in the SKY" and lofty but unrealistic plans of either candidate. It is time for a Change in this Country and why not give Obama an opportunity to be that change agent.

Posted by: sb4256 | February 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

How sadly ironic that the first viable female candidate for President has been relying on her husband to drag her across the finish line. And when that did not appear to be working, she resorted to injecting race and gender into the contest. Hillary is Nixon reincarnated - and that's not what our country needs.

Posted by: wachter911c4 | February 8, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The irony of claims that Clinton is substantive is that those claims aren't actually backed by substance.

So, for you substance hounds out there, here's a look at Obama and Clinton's records in the Senate.

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law), the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate), the 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law), the Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (in committee), and many more.

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

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

So who's the candidate of substance?

(By the way, for an amusing example of Clinton trying to be the "doer", watch her try to make a big deal out of a diplomatic trip to Bosnia taken with -- drum roll, please -- ... Sinbad!

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs )

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

To Alberta, yes it is us poor people who live on Social security that are giving to the Obama campaign. $25 every month, gave no Christmas gifts to my 7 kids, they also gave no gifts so they could give. Get your facts right before you speak. I also gave
him my late husbands blessed treasure to carry with him, it was 70 years old. I see so much good in that man, I am 74. His name means 'blessed' in Swahili and is in the book of Judges. He has no dirt on him to compare to her. Read "Lovely Quotes From Hillary" In AR they were known as the 2 headed snake my AR friends said.

Posted by: backtofdr | February 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

It is great to read the comments, or at least those that stick to the issues and facts, not the attacks. The future of this country, and maybe the globe, depends on a Democrat winning in November, and keeping the House and gaining hopefully gaining the Senate. I think debates are very important right now for our party to continue to delineate between the last two candidates. The candidate who can speak to the issues, clearly and consistently, will help voters that are undecided, and continue to contrast the Democratic ideals from those of McCain.
I am a Hillary supporter. Her website, like Obamas, has always had a donor site. I live in California, and know first hand that both candidates spent alot of money on ads. Those endorsement parties must have been expensive too.
Beware of the Republican machine misleading the public. McCain is an agressive individual who will let the party operatives do any attack they need to. McCain needs to make amends with the conservative wing of their party, and will go to any extreme to get their votes. I don't think independents are going to feel very warm and fuzzy about him by next November.
Please take an honest look at the states Obama and Clinton won, and who voted. Never underestimate the power of the core Democratic voters, and the new voters who made a difference last week, and will again in November. Asian voters, Latino voters, the older voter, and women continue to show up, and vote. In the privacy of the voting booth even more women will cross over and vote for Hillary.
Think unity, think November, think Democrat.

Posted by: maryfoleyrn | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

It would be a great ticket Clinton/Obama. I don't understand why everyone is pitting Obama as this GREAT HOPE because we need a change. What kind of change? That is what you wanted with Bill, and you got your change with Bush. How much of a change do you think Obama is from Bush? He can weave a good story like Bush, he can manhandle his so called victories like Bush, as he did when he proclaimed himself the winner of Super Tuesday, which he wasn't. Delegates are what counts. Clinton had more, but you notice that we didn't hear Clinton stating that. Now, just as Bush did we see him about to get dirty by wanting her to show her tax records. We are in a delicate situation now. What this country is in need of is someone with experience and who is reputable with other countries. Regardless of what anyone thinks, we will have that with Hillary AND Bill. But, just like Bush, what experience does Obama have dealing with other countries? I have never seen him talking with other leaders. We need someone who can bridge the rifts with other countries. Obama is not polished enough. I am a black woman. I have thought about this, and I have put this country's need before what my race needs. Obama would make a great president, but now is not his time. The next election, I would vote for him, regardless of what a great job Hillary was doing, and if he wasn't the vice president. I wish that he would consider the vice presidency for the opportunity to gain the experience that Bill will provide to both him and Hillary.

Posted by: MsAh1on1 | February 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that it is curious that all republicans are saying they want to run against Hillary because they could beat her easily? Why would they say something that would encourage democcrats to keep her from the nomination? The truth is obvious. The Republicans want Obama because they will eat him alive!!!! When summer comes, many of us will be tired of his empty speeches, inspiration will not be news, but dirt will be. We will lose the general election if Obama is the nominee. As for Clinton uniting the republicans against her--do not under estimate the number of republican women that are quietly supporting her.

Posted by: Helen6 | February 8, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

For henni.ouahes:

You honestly list your number one reason to not vote for Obama as his refusal to wear the ubiquitous lapel pin flag? Really? And then you say no one will explain why?

Well, here you are- I invested 10 seconds in answering this for you- it was very difficult, I had to type "obama flag lapel pin" into google and then click on a link. I hope you put a little more effort into researching other issues on candidates.

Here is his response to that question:

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

I am in complet support of him- Patriotism is speaking out on issues you believe in, doing what you think is right, not putting on the latest accessory that somehow validates your patriotism. I love my wife, but I don't put a lapel pin with her picture on each day- my day to day actions are what shows my commitment.

Posted by: drek0002 | February 8, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I read some of these responses and I am amazed at the spewing of hate. These are both good candidates but some of the responses I see here for one or the other sound like they were written by elementary school children.

If you are gust going to make baseless attacks against either candidate you are just feeding into the hands of the Republicans.

My God folks wake up. We are lucky to have to great folks running this cycle!

Posted by: RonnieRuff1 | February 8, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

From my side of the pond in he old UK a few weeks ago I wanted to do the right thing for the old USA and looked up Clinton's website - a mess it is. I tried to find her policies.
She lumps "the disabled" with "the old". We are PEOPLE not commodities. I looked up Obama and his site is clear and legible and his policies are clean and there is video to go with each. He speaks in good clear English - better than our PM or the awful Blair. He talks about disabilities. He is a fresh face from America and will give the potential for the US of A to be liked again and it can only benefit all of us. WAKE UP!

Posted by: walker.andrew | February 8, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Let me begin by saying I AM a Hillary advocate and supporter. Now, let me tell you why Obama is NOT my choice! 1. He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel and no one who supports or works for him will tell me why. 2. I have seen him standing with Hillary and others who are pledging our flag and he is NOT, and again no one will explain why. 3. He is the one who is NOT fighting against making this about race, in fact, he implies it a lot! In an article today in the NY Times, Obama's campaign manager said that the "landscape has changed now that Clinton appears to be making a strong play for Virginia, tapping the outer counties of Northern Virginia and WORKING CLASS WHITE area further west." Tell me that is NOT racist??? Aren't the Obama people tapping those areas that are more BLACK? But if Clinton says that, he or she is racist! Sounds like a double standard to me...
4. Yes, Bill CLinton was impeached for having sex in the White House??? Give me a break! If we impeached every PResident who had extramarital affairs, they'd ALL have been impeached - probably "W", too! How about let's focus on the fact that the one who is in the White House now should be impeached for legitimate reasons, too many to list! 5. How about the fact that Obama wasn't even in the Senate or public office when he "was against the war and Hillary voted for it"! His opinion then mattered as much as mine! Since then, he and Hillary have voted exactly alike on the war. Hummmmmmm....
Maybe those Dems who are so PRO Obama, need to look deeper into his record and his history before throwing stones at the Clinton campaign...

Posted by: nlstander | February 8, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Hillary die hard fans are worrying. Why would Obama play the race card? That would make no sense. Nationally, he loses as just the race candidate. Also, the man has an actual theory of constitutional development. He is witty, smart, comes across as genuine (if holding back a little at times when dealing with the media directly).

Clinton's obviously competent. But is her heart in the right place? Has she come to cultivate power for its own sake? Honestly, some of her answers to questions are beyond politics. She comes across as a practiced, false, disingenuous machiavellian.

So it comes down to this, for me. Is this the time for America to have a symbolic, inspiring presidency? To restore people's faith in the direction the country is taking?

Or is it time for hard politics, for wheeling and dealing?

I'm not saying Obama can't be pragmatic. Evidently he can. It seems to me his main selling point is to restore faith to most americans in the political system. And at times of recession, I think they need that more than they need the old Washington pendulum-swing.

Posted by: henni.ouahes | February 8, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama is going to be the nominee. Clinton has been steadily losing her appeal, her funds are depleting and her base is already tapped out. Obama has shown he can raise money liquid fast. That money comes from individual donors. We own his campaign not big business. To date he's won more states and on Tuesday he won just as many delegates as Clinton did. I suspect this trend will continue and she'll run out of steam.

Obama said, "It is clear many of her supporters will go his way if he is the nominee, but it is not clear many of his supporters will go her way." I think that is a very true statement. I don't know that I can support Clinton if she is nominated. I've already seen her colors in the wake of the MI and FL primaries with her pledge to have those votes seated...they should not be seated. Those states knew the penalty before they changed their dates. If she is the strong candidate she should be able to win without them.

Obama appeals to more moderates. Its that kind of candidate who can bring things to center. We need to end the red/blue state stuff. We need to work together to solve our common problems. We need to do so without the distractions of personal baggage brought into the whitehouse from prior administrations. We need to move forward. New blood, grass roots. E Pluribus Unum.

Go Obama...We got Work To Do.


Posted by: fortheclueless | February 8, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins the nomination, my friends and I will vote for McCain, because it is better to be wrong but honest, than right but deceiptful. She bashed so much about ending the war and then voted for its continued funding. If she cares for America, she steps aside and endorses Obama.

Posted by: kaveh_vejdani | February 8, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Never have I seen so many comments--great to see that everyone is now paying attention.

We should pay very close attention. Pay attention to the mood of the country. Pay attention to the fact that the Republican Party is circling around John McCain and that he is moderate enough to steal the independents that will be absolutely necessary for any Democrat to win in November.

Obama is not that Democrat. He is not moderate enough to win the independent vote in a general election against a war seasoned veteran Senator. Obama's lack of experience will make him seem like the Pie-in-the-sky liberal and we will lose this election.

There will be a day for Obama but today is not the day. Winning the general election is our only goal at this point--should we lose all else means nothing.

Hillary can and will win. Thank goodness we have her when we need her.

Posted by: loudermilk | February 8, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse


Obama has forgotten how much his black brothers and sisters suffered during the Reagan years. He is the beneficiary of black racism to begin his political career with in IL, yet he praises REAGAN AND THE REPUBLICAN'S IDEAS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. We just don't know whom Hillary is running against, a Republican or a Democrat a honorable man or a hypocrite.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst) with the most important job in the free world just because he is a great SPEAKER.


Talk is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.



Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

ugoekeowa - i went to link didn't see an interview. can you try and find it again?

Posted by: TheUrbanRevolution | February 8, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 8, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

MJNO regarding Taylor Marsh - who ever she is. i can point you toward much more damaging info about Hillary. Point is Barack in the press admitted that dealing with Reznko (sp?) was a mistake. Hillary has yet to admit that voting to take us to WAR was a mistake. See the sign of a true leader is one that has the WISDOM to admit when he/she is wrong, learn from it and move forward. One cannot learn from it if they've not admitted that they're wrong! Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyC7loMop58

Posted by: TheUrbanRevolution | February 8, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

America is not listening to Oprah or the Ted and Carolyn Kennedy. Instead they listen to the debates. Obama couldn't win a debate with Hillary. He is full of empty talk, with no substance. Hillary has provided roadmaps for economic recovery and universal healthcare. Our nation is in recession, and we need her leadership and skill to get us out of all these problems.
Obama is a snake oil saleman. He promised "change" in Illinois -- but failed to deliver anything. He did not inititate or support any fundamental changes that would improve the lives of Chicagoan. He benefited politically and financially from the corrupt system. Obama has done nothing as a senator except cutting deals to enrich himself as Rezko partner. Michelle tripled her salary at the hospital job immediately after he was elected to the senate. The Obamas are scam artists with the smooth talk.
Hillary has been scrutinized for century and they come out with nothing. I trust Hillary more than Obama.
Hillary 08!


Posted by: tigerjcs | February 7, 2008 07:48 PM


Complete rubbish. They listened in 13 states on Tuesday. Count 'em! Obama's healthcare proposal may not sound so flashy but is practicable, Hillary's is FANTASY! She won California because of postal votes cast months before by the foolish old people. By the time the election comes those folks might be dead and McCain will blast her away. As for Illinois, who cares? What has HRC done for New York apart from drain it of all soul?

Posted by: rupertornelius | February 8, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

"I am sad. Obama is the "divisive" one. Watch him closely. He is ruining the democratic party. WATCH HIM.

Posted by: mjno | February 7, 2008 07:59 PM

It probably needs ruining - it's as corrupt as Washington and just as afraid of change - hence this superdelegate nonsense. Not only are you sad you are stupid to try clinging on to the 'slumlord' story by the way- no-one cares about it.

Posted by: rupertornelius | February 8, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama is fantastic. For all those people who say that he lacks substance please watch this insightful interview and educate yourselves. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1071704&srvc=rss

Pure magic. He speaks from the heart and inspires.

Posted by: ugoekeowa | February 7, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

one question to the washington post, can you place the lastest comment first?
It seems much easier to understand the readers reaction.

Djibril an Obama supporter.

Posted by: didoulefou | February 7, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Turns out that the news about Hillary Clinton donating $5 million of her own money while her senior staffers faced a loss of their paychecks may be just a ploy to win sympathy, again.

At first, the news of Hillary's financial difficulties struck me as odd, but not because her outside funds were drying up.

After all, Barack Obama is showing us all that Hillary can't even win a fixed fight, and "smart" money is not, well, dumb.

Still I asked myself, how was it that someone of once modest means who claimed to have worked tirelessly for 35 years ("fighting for YOU!") in the notoriously badly-paid public interest sector had become so wealthy?

Sure there's been some financial scandals.

And as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say, "A million here, a million there --it adds up to real money."

But why focus on the negative? What does the skelton of a scandal or six rattling around in your closet matter, when you have so much experience and a well-tested finger to the wind?

Then, suddenly, a tune entered my head and I thought, maybe if I offered a tailored version of it to the Clinton campaign, they'd use it to replace that awful Celine Dion song that used to be Hillary's campaign anthem.

(Ya know, 99.999 percent of those recently surveyed also say they prefer the Obama Girl to that uni-sex Hillary Eunuch that popped up trying to imitate her.)

Anyway, compensation shouldn't been a problem, if the most recent report that Hillary is back in the pink of financial health is true.

For sure, I wouldn't ask what account at Clintons, Inc. the money came from, or which lobbyist forked it over.

(I'm sure if it was the latter it was in a gesture of sheer generosity--why think evil of people, K Street lobbyists have hearts too, no?

(After all, wasn't it those caring medical insurance lobbyists who hired that nice couple, Harry and Louise?)

If you ask me, it's like Bill with that race card thing. How unfair those critics, who you can be sure all belonged to that Vast Rightwing Conspiracy! (And how slick he was, no? ;D )

Always leave just a little wiggle room, small enough to fit the word "is" through. (Or a cigar.)

Anyway, remember that girls' song, "It's My Party," written by Wally Gold, John Gluck and Herb Weiner and recorded by Lesley Gore?

Well how about this version for HRC?

IT'S MY (DEMOCRATIC) PARTY

Nobody knows where my Bill has gone
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) left the same time
Why was he holding her/their hand(s)
When he's supposed to be mine?

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
(For that's what victims do-o-o-o).

Playin' my constituents, flip-flopping like a Wallenda,
Leave me alone for a while
'Till Bill's dancin' with me
I've got no reason to smile

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.

(lead break)
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) and Bill just walked through the door
Like a queen(s) with her/their king
Oh what a Dogpatch surprise
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) is/are wearin' his ring(s)

It's my Democratic Party and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 7, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Politicians are politicians - Barak or Hillary doesn't matter. They are two of a kind. There is not much difference between them. Barack has high rhetoric and does anything to get elected the same way Hillary did. If playing race card helps him get the African American voters, he will do so, apparently much better than the Clintons. You've to give him the fact that he is a rallying force and is able to mobilize interest in lot of voters. You've to give to her that she was a strong woman who stood up to lot of public scrutiny, nonsensical hate and the constant hits at the Clintons from day one. I'm it wont' be any different if Barack gets into white house. You can't hope to wish away partisanship. This campaign has shown that Barack is no Gandhi(show the other cheek when somebody hits you). He will punch them back which ensues a fresh volley of partisanship. He is dishing out lot of hope that he won't be able to deliver.

Posted by: eswarchandral | February 7, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Clinton supporters, but I can not and will not support someone who was required to return items taken from the White House and Air Force One. I will not support someone who runs on her experience - but after much research she actually has 5 years less experience in politics than her opponent. I will not support someone who's supporters are so afraid that they will use lies and half truths to gain their desires. I will not support someone who removes information from her resume (WalMart Board Member for 6 years). I will not support someone who will not take the personal responsibility of owning up to a mistake. John Edwards voted for the war too, but was man enough to admit he was wrong.

As for the Muslim issue, yes, Barack Obama's paternal grandfather - who he never met - was Muslim. BUT, in a country that one of our core values is freedom of religion is whether he is or isn't Muslim an issue? Not every Muslim in the world is a member of a terrorist group. Not every Muslim in the world is America's enemy. This is another fear attack that is beneath any American.

Clinton supporters, I respect that you have the right to support your candidate and have merely explained why I will not support her. But, I ask you to please stop the bashing, negative, swift boat tactics towards Barack Obama. IF your candidate is truly the strongest candidate, they are unneeded.

Posted by: stefstringfellow | February 7, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

There are much more Democrat voters than Republicans during the Primaries. Regardless which Democrat gets in, the Democrat will win this election.

Posted by: angie_ho3 | February 7, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey there. Republican here. Yep, dyed in the wool, voted for Bush, no excuses. Guess what? I just had a great conversation with 5 of my Republican buddies. We all agreed that if Clinton was nominated, we would all vote McCain. However, if you guys nominated Obama, we were split 3-3. Get the picture? Clinton is the most galvanizing thing you could do. At least if you nominate Obama, you stand a chance.

Posted by: root | February 7, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

gandalfthegrey --All day I have been trying to articulate why I lean more toward Obama than Clinton, you did it for me. Thank you. The word opportunist has been floating around my mind ever since she ran for the NY senate. (And that's when I lived in NY. Now I live in CA.) I knew even then she had her eye on the White House and until Obama came along, I was all set to vote for Hilary. (Lesser of two evils, that sort of thing.) But this is the first time I am actually voting for the person I feel represents my interests and my values. Aren't leaders supposed to be inspiring? Hilary does not inspire me. She feels me with dread. Obama feels me with hope.

Posted by: shelahann2002 | February 7, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

VIRGINIA REPUBLICANS; VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES !


Virginia voters, don't waste your vote in the Republican primary; McCain is going to be the Republican nominee.

Vote in the Democratic primary for the Democrat that you'd prefer if the Democrats win in '08 (which is possible!).

Hedge your bets. Don't waste your vote.

Who do you dislike the most? Clinton or Obama?

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

I once used to enjoy reading comments posted about the election on the site, but it has only degenerated to what facebook was 9 mth ago, a bunch a people with high school level intellect spewing insults and cynicism. For Obama supporter pls take a page from his motto and "disagree without being disagreeable" and likewise for Clinton supporters.
If you're going to post at least do your homework first!

Posted by: oshowole | February 7, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Iowatreasures - please don't behave like the crazy people who spread the email about Obama being a Muslim and tied to the taliban. I don't know why you are "WORRIED" about Obama. HE WAS RAISED BY WHITE FOLKS for crying out loud! What are you thinking? They are the only family he knows. When you are biracial you don't look at the race thing the way others do, because that would be foresaking 1/2 of who you are!!!! DUH! Stick to facts, stick to the issues. If you don't like his plans, if you think his health plan is hokey - fine. But don't start going off on some conspiracy theory nonsense.

Posted by: TheUrbanRevolution | February 7, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

We people of Pakistan pray for Democates win who can check despotic regime whose spy agencies have hidden contacts with terrorists and responsible for ever increasing terrorist activities for blackmailing to accomplish their nefarious aims. We pray for success of such President of USA who can dare to destroy Nukes and bring all those whoever traded neuclear material and knowledge to rogue countries to an Intrnational Tribunal.
Hussain Bux Thebo
Sindh, Pakistan

Posted by: hbthebo | February 7, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

"America is not going to elect an admitted cocaine abuser.'

Um, didn't our current president have a little cocaine/alcohol problem back in the day?

And the fact that Obama disclosed his drug use rather than hide it, compared to how the Clintons are genious at mis-information, I wouldn't hinge Obama's electibility on a youthful mistake.


Posted by: shelahann2002 | February 7, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary supporters are really digging to try and throw dirt on Obama. Her accomplishments..what are they? She couldn't get anywhere if her last name was something like "White" or "Smith" or "Jones". She uses the "fond" hazy memories that people had of Bill. How quickly they forget all the illegal activity that went on. Just because he Bill managed to avoid jail doesn't make him any less guilty. Just think, if Bill had been chasing Obama instead of interns, we might have been spared the horror of 9/11. Hillary excuses her loan to campaign with some crap about believing in herself. Note that this "loan" was not made public until AFTER the Feb. 5th primaries. Why? Fewer votes. She will stop at nothing to win. Imagine anyone willing to be her V/P. It's pointless as there would be no political power in that position with Billary as POTUS. She wants more debates with Obama as that gives her free publicity. She is expert at talking and promising. She hired a Voice Coach last year, paid for from campaign funds. The corporate Clintons know how to "work a crowd" and promise the moon. Can Hillary could REALLY get mandated health care passed by both houses. Obama is sincere, highly intelligent, and will be able to work with all parties in the White House.

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 7, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY IS CHANGE! She is a woman of substance standing up against an establishment that is ingrained with interest groups and lobbyist. She tried to change this when she stepped in to help fix a broken Health Care system, only to have it knocked down by interest groups; however, this did not discourage her from re-trying to CHANGE IT. She is vetted, smart, experienced, hard-working and her heart is in the right place. This has earned her a re-election as a tireless NY Senator and swayed doubters like myself. I like Barack; he is inspirational and well liked especially when faced against the what we currently have in the White House; however, after the honeymoon is over and reality kicks in we need to rely on someone that has a proven record and not one that is a "MAYBE". The U.S. and the World has too much at stake.

P.S. With her being elected, you also get Bill Clinton. This is a BIG plus to her presidency to help re-establish respect and rebuild relationships around the world.

Posted by: angie_ho3 | February 7, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

If Obama get nomination republicans play him like a toy on several issues and he never wins

Posted by: jay2008j2 | February 7, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, the press would be all over the Clinton campaign if they had made similar petty remarks about finances.
People looking for a Clinton/Obama ticket can forget it.
Obama looks to be right out of the George W. Bush mold, petty and mean spirited plus they both did cocaine in their youth.
The more light that is shined on Obama, the more illuminated are the weaknesses in his character.
"Change" is nothing more than a campaign slogan. His snub at the State of the Union speech and the denial that followed reflect the pettiness of the individual.
We saw more of it at the debate when he went after Clinton with a knife, she ended up wiping the floor with him while he played the victim.
I have seen enough of this individual and will not waste my precious vote on him!

Posted by: FredCDobbs | February 7, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama's superior chances at the November elections is evidenced by the following states - who had exit polls - that showed he won the majority of Independent votes:

Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah.

This compares to Clinton winning smaller majorities of Independent voters in the following states:

Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts, Oklahoma.

Now, go and look at what majority in each state the Independents currently make up. In a lot of cases the Independents are the majority. They have extremely strong swing power. Also look into the high negative ratings Clinton has with Independents. With this information, you can come to no other conclusion that Obama is the better candidate to secure a Democratic Presidency.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 7, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I have noticed that the first posted comment is always anti-Obama, in almost all the media web sites. The politically correct is said inside the media report. Immediatly below that the garbage is said on the name of un-known citizens. This is how they get around the law ristriction. I logged the time, then posted immediately, but got the message that your comment will be reviewed then posted. A few moment later it was posted after two anti-obama comments.

Posted by: Nabily | February 7, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

People really need to relax (yes, you svreader & harried). Your random, psychotic attacks are hurting your candidate more than helping.

Why can't we admit that both of these folks are intelligent, capable, and worth looking at? I mean, if they are tied in delegates, then obviously half of America isn't insane. Its because they are both great choices. If you do think that half of the democrats in America are insane, perhaps you should switch parties.

Honestly, the personal attacks are not flattering.

I don't understand the "empty suit" and "snake-oil salesman" comments about Obama or why they are merited. He is obviously intelligent, was a law professor and respected U.S. Senator, and graduated from Harvard. All he is selling is hope, and now even Hillary is on that bandwagon and uses the word "change" often.

As for electability, both TIME and the NY Times report similar statistics that Hillary vs. McCain would be close, a tie to almost 3 % in favor of McCain according to national polls. But, in Obama vs. McCain, Obama is up at least 6% and leads with 2/3 of independents. Not to mention the rabid hate of the Republicans of Clinton which will motivate their base. Even Clinton supporters can admit that right wing conservatives loathe their candidate, fair or unfair.

Let's try to talk facts, people, and not attacks. I think the spread of partisan warfare over the last 16 years has now spread down to within the parties. This is sad and pathetic. Keep to the facts and keep respect for both of these talented politicians.

Posted by: hillmannic | February 7, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I think at this stage Clinton should raise her voice to win. President Clinton needs to act now. People like Obama's answer in the last debate about iraq war but be realistic.
Obama grand parents lives in Kenya are not Christians and his Father family side have muslim background. His opposition to the war in the beginning is therefore understandable.
In the beginning of 2003, when more than 70 % public was in support for the war and when CIA and the bush administration bringing proof of weapons in iraq what made Obama think to oppose the war? why he did not believe CIA reports at that time, even though the reports are proven false now.
"It is not his good judgment as a Leader"

Posted by: jay2008j2 | February 7, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I do not like that Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - AFTER - she discussed with senior Democratic colleagues the likelihood that he would take the authorization and run.

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

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

She spent over 6 minutes in that debate flip-flopping around in embarrassing fashion on HER war authorization vote.

So.....why did she vote FOR the WAR?

She knew the Dems would not carry the issue...a No vote would have cemented her in opposition to the stupid war. It would not have affected the vote outcome.

Why did she vote YES????

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

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

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq because she did not want to poison the well from which she thought (way back in 2003) she would have to drink when going up against a Republican in 2008.

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

In other words,

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

Hillary Clinton took her stance on the War with her eye on her political career. There is no other explanation for her vote - unless she supported the war and is now ducking that conviction.

She is a politician and not a leader.

CLINTON MUST BE DENIED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 7, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

...And, if people can't see that it is exactly this putting Corporations and lobbyists before the American people that has harmed America over the course of the Bush administration and you willfully ignore the clear writing on the wall that the Clinton's are brought into that same game, well you deserve nothing better than continuing down the path that has been played over the last 8 years.

To me, it seems obvious that the better choice for a president is the one who has raised funds from the American people directly - because they are only bound to the American people - not groups that have their own interests, rather than your interests, at heart.

Obama has played a clean race, very much unlike the Clinton's. They will lie and cheat and do whatever is necessary to come through for the Corporations and lobbyists that have invested in their campaign for the promise of later gains. Be wise people.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 7, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

If I remember clearly, Bill Clinton smoked but wait a minute, I forgot, he didn't inhale, while Obama gave the world the truth about what he did when he was younger. Obama is too much of a gentleman, if I was him, I would have not debated her, and let her desperately look for money for publicity. Just the idea of Obama running, has the world looking at us, as a different racially united country, if Hilary came in, we would be perceived as a war mongering country losing the mantle of leadership. Vote for change, Vote Obama.
Obama 08

Posted by: brainx | February 7, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

I have chosen not to drink the Clinton Kool-Aid. Billary is a pathetic excuse for a candidate who will only repeat the John Kerry strategy of winning only the big states, but with likely poorer results. She has had no reliable ground game in many states throughout the middle of the country (e.g. Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota, etc.). How is this a winning strategy for the Fall? Also, what the hell is going on with her getting "misty" just before a major primary (e.g. New Hampshire, super tuesday)? It's beginning to look manipulative. There is no way my white male friends in middle America fly-over country will ever vote for her in the general. All of us have already voted for Obama in our caucus.

Posted by: hoplandria | February 7, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

"Obama, he's getting $30 million, then $5 million, from all these "POOR" people.

Shoot! How come all these "POOR" people have that much left over?"

Obama gets the highly educated upper middle class "wine drinking" vote.
They make $100,000 a year.
They give him $50.00 to $250 every couple weeks.
The have lap tops and sit in coffee cafe's.


Hillary gets the whites with GED's and who make less than 20 thousand a year.

She gets most her money from lobbyist and packs. They have maxed out. That is why she is having problems.

Obama has millions ans millions of people who keep sending him $50 bucks or more every couple weeks. They are not maxed out.

Obama is for the people and funded by the people.

He is the real deal. He is supported by the middle class people of America.


Posted by: catwoman2 | February 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I think we must look at this Old Man McCane!
Bombed Women and Children from the air and got caught!

Screw Him!!!!!

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary gets so--- emotional and cries every time she wants someone to feel sorry for her and give her votes.
What a phony? She and Bill both need to get a grip and come out of the closet. She will be deceptive at any cost and the American people are tired of fake individuals such as herself. We demand a change for the better and the clear choice is Obama.

Obama is very intelligent, call it preacher or whatever have you. Is that the only/best comparison you can come up with when describing someone of his ethnicity that has an overwhelming amount of intelligence and speaks on a level that only Hillary could dream of. You have to be kidding me. He IS MUCH MORE presidential than Hillary, and has what it takes to move America forward. Hillary always seems like she is so pissed off and on her menstrual period every time a debate occurs, I would hate to see this type of person attempt to make peace around the world and keep us in good standing with American allies. Hillary and Bill are only doing well in accomplishing great divisions amongst the Democratic party. Job well done, now move on with your life.

Obama for president 2008

Posted by: tiff59134 | February 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes I think 2/3 of the comments on here are from republicans pretending to be Hillary or Obama supporters- the vitriol and ugliness are very different from the conversations I have with my friends and colleagues whom I know, rather than just annonymous accounts on the post website.

I frankly think both Hillary and Obama are strong candidates. I think Obama is a better candidate, because he is drawing new enthusiastic voters into the democratic party, and he can articulate a strong vision of unity and service that people are responding too.

For those that say he is full of lovely rhetoric but few details- first I would say he has very detailed plans on most issues- and then I would remind you that congress legislates, the president has the power of the bully pulpit to help steer the debate and the country. I believe that is not a small gift. For all of Hillary's expertise and "wonkishness," it did nothing to help her move healthcare reform forward, because she did it in a way that alienated far too many people. I fully supported it, but the way it fell apart really set us back.

Lastly- for those that say a person with a history of cocaine use can't be elected- um, W? I think people are actually impressed that Obama can answer a question honestly, rather than use a Bush dodge like "I did not use cocaine in the last x number of years, and before that I won't talk about it."

Anyways, that's long enough, but lets try keep it civil, both among ourselves and in our comments about 2 candidates who are both quite impressive people. I always hate the negativity that explodes on annonymous forums.

-Dimitri Drekonja

Posted by: drek0002 | February 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

PMSL about people calling Obama the company ho. Last year in Iowa Clinton was challenged about taking traditional campaign funding from Corporations and lobbyists - i.e. the status quo way. Her position was that she could take this money but still stand up against the interests of those funding her and poo-poohed the idea that you could run a campaign any other way. Edwards AND Obama disagreed and formed their campaigns around grassroots donations from the people, so that the people's voice was heard over lobbyists and Corporations.

Obama has proved Clinton wrong - you can get enough funds together with grassroots campaigning - you don't have to pre-sell yourself to lobbyists and Corporations to get elected. Obama stays true to his message, while Clinton flips and flops and tells you whatever will work to get you to vote for her - but in the end her pre-brought campaign will ensure a presidency where the American people are secondary to what the Corporations and lobbyists want.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 7, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

has anyone noticed that the british press is reporting the u.s search for a democratic candidate to suit a pro-clinton format?

Posted by: rumuodani | February 7, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I think we must look at this Old Man McCane!
Bombed Women and Children from the air and got caught!

Screw Him!!!!!


Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:24 PM

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

tigerjcs: So Obama promised change but failed to deliver; would you care to elaborate on the changes that the esteemed Senator has made in my state of New York? This woman campaigned for the Senate in November of 2006 and completely denied any intention of running for President. A little over a month later, she revealed her plan and a comprehensive organizational strategy. Meanwhile, throughout the summer and fall she was begged to actually debate the issues (Iraq War, American Israeli policy, healthcare, capital punishment, etc.) by a highly respected but relatively unknown progressive Democratic challenger named Jonathan Tasini; editorials were written in the New York Times, New York Post, Newsday, ALbany Times Union, DEMANDING that she debate him, but she refused. She would gain nothing by actually revealing her lack of commitment to ANYTHING AT ALL!!!!!!
Some questions that won't be addressed in the debate:
1.She voted to authorize the use of force w/out BOTHERING to READ the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was kept in a vault, and to which none of her aids had access. I personally travelled to New Hampshire just to finally get a chance to ask her in person if she had read the report (she had previously declined to answer a reporter's question on the issue, and completely ignored all of my emails and letters).
2. She claims that G.W.B. "misled" her and the American people. The fact is that she wasn't just "misled", she was ACTIVELY ENGAGED in MISLEADING. In her highly influential 10/10/02 speech, she stated "Saddam Hussein has given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members..." She termed this "fact" "Indisputable". Sorry, Hil, and Tigerjcs, but any debate edge that you have is that words and accuracy don't really matter to you. The only indisputable fact is that not only was their no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that virtually ALL Middle Eastern Foreign Policy Analysts and Scholars, as well as virtually all Democratic establishment figures categorically rejected the idea at the time. (Al Gore skewers her behavior (w/out directly using her name) in his book "The Assault on Reason" He ridicules the idea that any Democrat could invoke the "had I known what I know now defense, since they absolutely should have known then).
3.She voted AGAINST a Senate Amendment which would have banned the use of CLUSTER BOMBS in civilian areas. No explanation given. (Most of us Jews recognize it as pure pandering to the rightwing Israeli lobby, as Israel had just showered Lebanon with these things, despite the protests of many of its own soldiers). If you don't understand how horrific this vote was, then you have no business ever voting in any election.
4. She cosponsered legislation that would Criminalize the Desecration of the U.S. flag. So it's ok with Hillary if I make and profit from the sale of CLUSTER BOMBS, but if you use the flag in a peaceful protest against such activities, then you should be incarcerated. (By the way, any smart 4th grader can tell you that the 1st Amendment was created to protect unpopular speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court averred when it ruled such legislation unconstitutional).
5.She now is fond of claiming that the American military has succeeded, but that it is the Iraqi government that has failed to take responsibility for its own country. This statement, when considered in the context of our having virtually destroyed their society because of our own stupid, arrogant rush to an unprecedented illegal preemptive war, approved by a jackass congress that hadn't even STUDIED the intelligence, is not only cruel, it is not only infuriating, and likely to incite terror, IT IS SIMPLY BORDERLINE SOCIOPATHIC. It simply reveals a total lack of conscience. Not only does this person have no business running for President, she (as well as many others) should be REMOVED from the Senate for CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!!!!!!!!!!
6. Ralph Nader has explicitly stated that he will run if she is the nominee. No progressive of conscience will vote for this person, with her arrogant militaristic pandering, her endless earmarks for weapons systems,her excessive corporate ties, her AIPAC nonsense, her approval of more and more media consolidation, which shuts out all progressive candidates who aren't multimillionaires, her absolute silence as Wal-mart waged its WAR on unions, her lack of understanding of the detrimental impact of NAFTA on the working class and poor both at home and abroad. HER LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON ANY SINGLE ISSUE!!!! Please, I beg of you name a principled position of this person! SHE WILL NOT WIN. The Republicans won't defeat her. The Democrats will. She represents everything that smart Democrats Hate. There are good reasons that the more educated part of the electorate are choosing Barack Obama. The best is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: tpmrussell | February 7, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

part 2

Example #5 Obama praises Ronald Reagan's charisma instead of Clinton's management of the economy

Obama praised Ronald Reagan's "charisma" in an interview, plus said Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Bill Clinton took this as a personal insult.

Why? Bill Clinton did a superb job managing the finances of this country when President ** decreasing the massive deficits the country he inherited from Reagan/Bush Sr., and decreasing them every year - under both Democratic and Republican congresses -- until the US had surpluses in Clinton's last two years in office.

Remember, when Bush first came in office he kept repeating how the US had "surpluses as far as the eye can see?" The projections were based on Clinton's steward of the economy . Even Alan Greenspan (a Republican) praised how Clinton did a great job on the US economy on a Sixty Minutes show a few months ago.

Paul Krugman wrote an article in the NY Times why he had a problem with Obama's praise for Reagan. Per Krugman, "Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect. ... Contrast that with Mr. Obama's recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." .. where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?scp=4&sq=krugman&st=nyt

Obama was praising Reagan's charisma because he saw himself (Obama) as also possessing/sharing in great charisma.

But was it really Reagan's charisma that expanded the Republican Party. Paul Krugman has analyzed this time period before and concluded the reason the Republican Party grew, was almost due entirely to White Southerners being angry with Lynden Johnson's social legislation that help blacks fight segretation.

This wasn't charisma - this was policy.

#6 Bill Clinton is now called a racist for observing there are more black voters in South Carolina, and this was probably a factor why Hillary lost the primary there.

When Obama won the primary in South Carolina, Bill Clinton commented to the press it was due to a large proportion of the Democratic base in South Caroline being black. Clinton added that Jessie Jackson had also won a primary once in South Caroline (but had not done well after that.)

There was another uproar led by the Obama camp that this again was proof the Clintons were racists. Television news reveled in the controversy that Bill Clinton was showing anger. (He was angry -- but at being falsely accused and savagely attacked.)

Some of the frenzy died down after more calm heads noted that even black commentators had stated how Obama should do well in S. Carolina because of the high percentage of blacks voting in the Democratic primary. Other analysts had noted Hillary received higher support among women voters.

If Bill Clinton's remarks were racist, wasn't everyone else's remarks too? And if one wanted to start this game, did that mean anyone who observed that more women voted for Hillary - were misogynists (women haters?)

Against this background, Obama was campaigning how only he could get people to work together and pushing his charisma and vision.

Many editorials picked up how mean and unfair those bad Clintons were to poor Obama.
.
#7 Obama is still claiming that it is Hillary who is harshly attacking him.

Just prior to Super Tuesday, Brian Williams of NBC interviewed Obama and asked him how he would handle it if he is nominated - and the Right Wing starts attacking him.

Obama replied coolly that he wasn't worried, because the Right Wing can't attack him any harder than the Clintons have.

Really? Here are some hints of attacks that Right Wing have already observed and will pounce on:
:

- Obama had a Muslim father and his name (Barack Hussein) is Muslim,
- Obama's preacher is a fan of a controversial Muslim named Farrakhan, (Obama is not though.)
- Obama has admitted to cocaine addiction as a teenager in a book.
- Obama's has a close friendship with Rezko - a businessman now in jail and from whom Obama bought the land he build his mansion at a questionable low market price,
- Obama does not believe he should hold his hand over his heart while the national anthem is played - even when everyone else is. There is a video of this on Snopes.com. (Note: Obama does hold his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance - but I predict Right Wing future attack ads will leave this part out)
- Obama is relatively less experience than all the other politicians running...


Hillary will have her share of attacks. It will be non-stop Monica and Whitewater. But these are old issues for most people.

The Right Wing will find new areas to attack on Hillary - but I think they would have even more non stop attacks on Obama - the list above will put them in a frenzy.

The Right Wing Attack Machine is very powerful. Below are a few examples:

* Has anyone every questioned why it is only "bad" when Democratic candidates have affairs?
* Al Gore never said he "invented" the internet. He said he created the internet, in the context he got crucial financial funding for it. Al Gore was not a crazed environmentalist. He was trying to warn this country of real dangers.
* The Swift Boaters told us John Kerry was a traitor to his country and hated the Bible. (There as even an effort to ex-communicated Kerry from the Catholic Church for his support of gays and abortion.)

So - should we "believe" Obama when he says the Right Wing won't be any harder on him that the mean Hillary Clinton campaign?

Not me!

Which is a BIG reason, I am not supporting Obama in the primary.
\
There is another big reason I am not supporting Obama. Hillary really has the right attitude that it will take more than "charisma" to do the work to move our country in the right direction again. And she's got the qualifications and drive for it!

Go Hillary!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 7, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Senator Obama should debate Billary. There have been enough debates already. Are the Clintons that desperate now? More debates, no money and don't belive what Taylor Marsh writes, she's a shrill for Billary.

Posted by: GraceMN | February 7, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

"... we've created this base where people send $25 checks, $50 checks on an ongoing basis, and that is an enormous advantage for our campaign." So says Obama.

Yeah. Just plain folks sending in their pennies.

Except for:

Obama"s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007.

Obama"s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama"s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama"s presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c).


What a charlatan.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 7, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Why I switched -- from being a Barack Obama supporter to a Hillary Clinton supporter:

Last fall, I was originally leaning for Obama. Although I will still vote for Obama if he wins the nomination - I am going to vote for Hillary in the primary.

This is how the Obama camp lost me:

Instead of discussing the issues, Obama bases a lot of his campaign attacking the Clintons. Of course, he claims it is they who are attacking them.

But let's look at the record.

Example #1 Obama's character attack on Hillary as a "Witch"

Background. To be fair, the media was calling for Obama to attack Hillary.

After an early debate, Obama declared he would always negotiate with the enemy. Hillary responded this was the wrong approach, and that sometimes one couldn't negotiate with the enemy. Obama said a few days later that he would attack a country if they were terrorist too.

But Obama was looking for an attack back on Hillary. It is unfortunate in my mind that he chose to do this - not through a challenge or debate on the issues - but as a character attack..

Obama appeared on the Saturday Night Live show on a Halloween skit: Instead of dressing up in a Halloween costume, Obama dressed up "as himself" An actress playing "Hillary" wore a witch costume. The actor playing "Bill" called "Hillary" a real witch. Obama (playing himself) stood by watching calmly and presidentially at the fighting.

Comedy and parody is one thing. But Obama's presence meant he was part of it. This crossed the line.

Turn it around to see why: Imagine if Hillary had appeared on a comedy show with an actor portraying Obama as a secret practicing Muslim smoking cocaine. (a caricature the Right Wing has already put out on Obama, so it is not something I have made up.)

Would this seem like dirty politics. Of course.

Would anyone think it hypocritical if Hillary went around afterwards insisting she got people together and was a visionary? Absolutely.

If Obama had only played dirty politics once, I probably would have dropped it. (The media ignored how Obama effectively called Hillary a witch.)

Example #2 Hillary is Declared a Racist for her Martin Luther King remarks.

Hillary delivered a speech describing how political leaders were needed to partner with social leaders. She used Martin Luther King and President Johnson as an example, where President Johnson actually pushed the laws to desegregate the South, although they were largely based on King's moral principles.

The Obama campaign immediately called up the press to report that Hillary had grossly insulted Martin Luther King and was a racist. An Obama state campaign worker wrote up a multiple pages of "proofs" that Hillary was really a racist. Obama not call them off at first. His first public statement on the matter was to pronounce Hillary Clinton's comments on King as "unfortunate."

Obama only changed his mind after he and Hillary Clinton reached a "deal" on the matter.

Why, I thought, did it take a deal? Why didn't Obama do the right thing initially. Anyone could tell this was not a racist comment.

Example #3 Obama keeps distorting Bill Clinton's position on the Iraq War,

Obama insists that Bill Clinton was for the invasion of Iraq.


But here is Bill Clinton on 2/7/2003 on CNN: He wanted to wait for the UN inspectors to find WMD before invading Iraq. He said if it was a mistake you couldn't bring dead people ack.

*"Maybe in the end, the rest of the world just has no will to carry out the U.N.'s decision that's 12 years old now that he has to be disarmed," Clinton said. "But we don't know yet know that, and I always tell people, when you got the only real super military in the world, you can kill people next week or the week after that, or the week after that, but you can't bring them back. So I don't see that it hurts our country any to give Mr. (Hans) Blix a little more time if that's what he wants."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/judy.desk.clinton/index.html
Clinton wanted to first TRY sanctions, more selected military attacks, etc - -FIRST before a war to occupy a soverign country.; plus he was more worried about Bin Laden and North Korea than Saddam
"there are more pressing issues for the United States, such as Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda terrorist network and North Korea restarting its nuclear program.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/index.html

Obama kept repeating that the Clinton were for the war, even after they complained this was a gross distortion of their position.

Indeed, Obama needed to bash the Clintons on the war. It was necessary to hold himself up as a great visionary and leader who was the only person who would have kept us out of Iraq.

Example #4 Obama insisted that only he had the vision to be opposed to the Iraq War ... and

Obama repeated the theme that Hillary was a war monger for her vote on the War Resolution that gave Bush the powers to invade Iraq.

Except that Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004 (after the Iraq War had started) and therefore never voted on the War Resolution.

The Clinton camp noted that both Obama and Hillary had essentially identical voting records on Iraq, once Obama became Senator in 2004.

Obama claimed the Clintons were unfairly "attacking" him for making this statement.

Obama did publicly state his opposition to the War In Iraq - while out a private citizen. But many of the Democrats who voted for the War Resolution on Iraq were also opposed to the War. They voted for the War Resolution anyway so that the country would be prepared "if" Iraq really had WMD. The public was calling their Congressmen to put aside their partisan differences and show the world that America was united to take up force, if necessary to protect its citizens.

Hillary's position was that it was correct to vote to unite behind a leader in our time of need.
She has said "if" she had known that Bush was a liar (PLUS the Republicans would solidly support Bush afterwards) she would not have voted for it.

But no one had that kind of crystal ball back then. And if Iraq really was dangerous, it would have been a catastrophic mistake to sit idly if terrorists were working with Saddam on WMD.
.
Most Democrats - those who voted for and against it, said it was a very difficult decision.

Obama leaves out this background - and makes it sound like if he had been in the Senate then, this would have been an easy vote for him.

But no one knows that for sure. Did Obama also know - for sure there was no chance of WMD in Iraq?
I don't think he had any more of a crystal ball than anyone else.

But this has perhaps been Obama's best strategy of tearing down Hillary Clinton to present her as a war monger, while he (Obama) makes "great" decisions.

I see it as great staging and fiction.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | February 7, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

I think we must look at this Old Man McCane!
Bombed Women and Children from the air and got caught!

Screw Him!!!!!

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

Frankyrey said:

"Obama is clueless; he naively believes that the Republican attack machine (RAM) will be handling him with kid gloves. On the contrary. If he wins the nomination, they will shred him the way they have attacked Senator Clinton for years. No one is immune to their attacks; but Clinton is used to it and will handle the attacks quite well."

It seems that this argument is one of the strongest arguments Hillary supporters have against Obama. If the truth be told, it's about as pathetic as they come. For starters, you implicitly concede that you don't disagree with Obama's policy positions and leadership style by just asserting what SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO when he gets the nomination.

What's more troubling, though, is this sense that we as an electorate have to sit back and watch people withstand, or attempt to, the "republican attack machine." This is the very essence of what Obama speaks to--the fact that change needs to come from the ground up. Why do we just sit back and allow baseless lies and speculation divert attention from what we as a people should be focusing on--the issues! If supporting Hillary means that we sit back and let her do all the work, is that really what we want? Shouldn't we have a hand in changing our country for the better? Maybe some people think it's okay to sit back and watch this sad little rerun over and over again. But as for me, I support Obama because I, and I suspect millions of others as well, want to have a hand in changing the way things work in America. And that means that when the republican attack machine attacks Obama, I put on my gloves and stand right there beside him. Yes we can. YES WE CAN.

Posted by: MRBillups | February 7, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is no more able now to give us a universal healthcare program as President than she was in 1993 when her husband was sitting in the driver's seat. Even with a Democratic Congress they were shot down in flames.

Why? - It was a foolish plan conceived in secret - just like Cheney with the energy plan.

Whomsoever is elected President will have to work with Congress to come up with some sort of compromise bill that will garner enough votes to pass.

What Hillary blathers about now is all flash and dash....

Someone ought to ask her about who really pays...and what she will do if Americans do not want to opt in. Will her mandate really mean that a person's wages will be garnished to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Does that mean that if my family eats well, exercises, does not smoke and stays healthy with regular check ups that we will still have to pay a portion of the healthcare bills for the hugely fat slobs waddling the streets of our town who smoke and drink alcohol and eat mounds of junk food?

The hell with that.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 7, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her support for the masses over time, which is why the Right considers her a socialist. As for Obama's donations, he's getting them from the well off types, including many men. Much of Clinton's support comes from many women who are older and lack the resources normally accruing to men. She also has many Latino supporters who tend to earn less than the well off types who are supporting Obama. So, Obama folks, you need to recognize that you are benefiting from institutionalized biases in pay for women and Latinos. That should not make you proud.

Posted by: bjbprice | February 7, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

These comments sections are just a forum for partisans to cut and paste content that has no informational value whatsoever, particularly from the Clintonistas, who are content to make up any slander that suits their aims that day. I scroll through them, and I doubt anyone bothers with them. That that fact does not occur to posters (such as svreader1, 100 pages of posts from CA in just the past 30 days) shows how dearly they need to get a life. I doubt 100 votes have been swayed from all the comments in all the comments sections at WaPo.

As to the article itself, it looks like HRC -- pinched for cash -- wanted weekly debates that are free media, and essentially ads for her campaign. Obama, not needing cash for media, really didn't want to do this, but agreeing to two debates -- at a time when he could be in position to close the deal -- gives him good PR (refusing to debate is always bad PR), while limiting HRC's free media and preventing her from using the free media to get cash for TEX and Ohio, since by the time she gets contributions from those debates, it will be too late to buy air time. HRC's likely to be on a losing streak and behind, and if the shrill HRC shows herself on TV, or if they let Bad Bill out of the box as a desperation ploy, it will be lights out for good for HRC. Time is on Obama's side and he is cannily taking advantage. If this is example of Plouffe strategy, he's more clever than the bunch of the Clinton staff.

MEANWHILE, there's a constant parade of Obama endorsements. If only for the superdelegate value alone, they are notable (although it is far better to be endorsed by someone with a get-out-the-vote organization, like Tom Menino in Boston). Local pols who can deal out patronage are much stronger endorsers than names like Ted Kennedy because they can actually produce votes. Name endorsements are only good for PR; they can lead to an environment where voters are more comfortable supporting you.

I suspect HRC will not do well in Washington State. That state is full of Obama-types: well-educated, racially tolerant. No latinos to speak of. The militia vote in Eastern Washington isn't registered Dem. Note when Bill Gates put together his retirement video, he went to Obama, not Clinton. And Clinton has consistently lost in midwestern states like Nebraska. She's kind of in the position Obama was in Massachusetts -- she has the high profile endorser (Kerrey) but he has no organization, and midwesterners don't the stench of scandals that accompanies the Clintons. Not many blacks in NE, as in MN and WI and IA, but states with low numbers of blacks are usually quite tolerant. Only the virulent racists -- such as you find in the East -- could possibly give Obama's race more weight than his evident intellect and his message of unity.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 7, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow, things have really gotten out of control here. I've seen a lot of bad blood in Democratic primaries before, but nothing like this. Trust me, there will be no Clinton/Obama ticket, nor an Obama/Clinton ticket. Not after all this.

Clinton will never rally Obama supporters to her cause, but she will rally the conservatives to John McCain. Obama may not be able to heal these wounds either, but at least he doesn't rankle independents moderate Republicans the way the Clintons do.

Posted by: michael | February 7, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Here's Obama blowing some more smoke:

"... we've created this base where people send $25 checks, $50 checks on an ongoing basis, and that is an enormous advantage for our campaign."

Yep - jes plain folks like you 'n' me emptying their little piggy banks.

Oh - except...
here are a few more of the folks contributing to Obama:

"Obama"s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama"s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama"s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).
Meanwhile, Obama"s presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). "

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 7, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I can't imagine someone saying, "You know, I'm a registered Republican, but I voted for Clinton," can you?!? In what universe can Dems picture Clinton winning in a contest against McCain?
___________________________

In what Universe do we win the "WAR ON TERROISM" in Iraq?

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jmckee | February 7, 2008 09:47 PM

I've wathced politics from many lenses. As a South African resident (but American citizen) I got to vote in South Africa's first free election. I've never seen a statesman as potent as Nelson Mandela, until now.

Obama is our Mandela.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I see him as the main ingredient in a recipe for peace, all we have to do is add a large heaping of us who vote. And the entire country is would once again be UNITED. Not in fear but in hope.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 7, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Guys -She just doesn't appeal to me. IT WILL BE THE NEXT BIG ECONOMIC DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN (It will take us over 50 years to recover from the disaster we've on us currently i.e. IRAQ)
___________________________-

Hmmm! Just run up the damn bill and blame the next person?
DROP DEAD!!!!

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Just stood holding an "Obama '08" sign at a neighborhood intersection on Super Tuesday. A woman came up to me and said, "I'm a registered Republican, but I voted for him. You know, that's a big thing, and you're going to get a lot of that - registered Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama."

I can't imagine someone saying, "You know, I'm a registered Republican, but I voted for Clinton," can you?!? In what universe can Dems picture Clinton winning in a contest against McCain?

Posted by: mschung123 | February 7, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

If these were in fact debates - they would be worth watching.
But they have simply become a forum for Obama to dump on Hillary Clinton.

We will wind up with a nut like McCain thanks to the idiot ravings of this pompous fake.

Considering how "brilliant" he is supposed to be, he sure can act stupid.

Posted by: lennyjazz | February 7, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I admire much of what Clinton has accomplished but I can not respect her vote on Iraq nor her inability to admit, even in hindsight, that she made a "mistake." Sounds like more of the same as we already have in the White House and it speaks volumes about her character....or lack thereof.
She does have the b.s. quotiant, I'll give her that.

Posted by: barvel4 | February 7, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her prospective running mate, good old Bill are really looking forward to returning to the White House. Granting an Executive Pardon for Cash is despicable - Is that where Hillary got today's $5 million? I bet Bill will be in charge of granting executive pardons if Hillary returns to the WH (God forbid), that would be a good way to become very rich. Each felon contributes $5Million to the Clinton Political Survival Fund, then HRC pardons. Good retirement plan for the Clintons.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 7, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Plus, she's fat.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 7, 2008 09:33 PM

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

What the hell is this type of comment doing here? I'd expect this on CNN, but on the Post?

GROW UP

Posted by: trisha2 | February 7, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Excellent move by Obama!

Posted by: ggenerations | February 7, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama has plenty of substance. I do agree it's a pity that he has chosen to stick to vague generalities in many of his speeches.

To get a better sense of what he's made of, watch him get interviewed by the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle: http://sfgate.com/ZCFF . He is able there to share his approach and thinking better than at a rally or in a debate . He is an impressive and thoughtful guy, who has sound policy positions (see his website for more) but who believes, beyond any specific policy position, that a society can arrive at good policies if its leaders set the ground rules for debate and decision-making and hold the public discourse to a high standard.

Remember, the man taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years, where he was regarded as one of the best and fairest-minded professors ( http://snipurl.com/1z8e2 ); he was president of the Harvard Law Review; he has the support of most of the foreign policy establishment; and he has written two excellent, thoughtful books. Not that his campaign ever plays up any of that -- maybe it sounds too snobbish. But he has a very sharp intellect and he has been thinking about issues of process for a long time.

I should add that Clinton is also very impressive and I would happily vote for her in the general election! She is extremely knowledgeable (more than Obama) and has good policy positions (better than Obama on health care, worse on foreign policy).

But I think that G. W. Bush has done such damage to our system of government and to our image abroad that we need a next president whose top priority is not prevailing over the Republicans on specific policy points (which is Clinton's agenda), but rather returning our country to the moral high ground, first in how it runs its own affairs and in how it talks to the rest of the world, and second in the specifics of what it does and says.

I think this is Obama's agenda, and he can start it out with a lot of goodwill -- he has done a good job cultivating a reputation for fair-mindedness. Clinton is probably a better short-term tactician, but her long-term strategy of relying on short-term tactics over the years means that she is rightly viewed with suspicion by many of the people that she'll have to work with.

In short, she is temperamentally a lawyer, who sees her role as angling to get the best deal for her client (the American people) against the other side (special interests). He is temperamentally a constitutional law professor or judge, who sees his role as setting the ground rules, holding everyone to a high standard, and determining who has the best argument. I think right now, the country needs someone who plays the latter role as effectively and as visibly as possible.

(How about McCain? In fairness, he is also interested in restoring America's honor. But I think McCain would end up being a weak, caretaker president, albeit a personally popular one. He is not as smart as Obama, nor as able to inspire other smart people to drop their important careers and come to Washington to work for him (which the SF Chronicle suggests is one of Obama's strengths). McCain would be constrained by having to placate various factions of the GOP. And I think McCain's idea of restoring our honor does not involve any new leadership: it is merely to go back to the days of the first Pres. Bush and add campaign finance reform. Finally, I certainly don't care for most of McCain's specific policies or his likely Supreme Court appointments!)

Posted by: OhsZ9tA8 | February 7, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

If this snake oil salesman Obama gets the nomination I will vote for McCain. I would rather have some experience than none. Eight years of GW has proven that. It's really funny how bad people are at judging character. You would think that after two terms of George Bush people would learn.

Posted by: ppzoom | February 7, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Change ,change ,change,but to what?

Posted by: vze28czv | February 7, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Guys - see I don't hate the Clintons but (I love Bill), but I just don't think Hillary has it in her (not b'cos she's a woman). She just doesn't appeal to me. She is giving everybody the cool-aid about free health care (welcome to the world where it will take 3 month before you can see a doctor - you gotta wait in line). A republican governor in CA tried to do it, but Californians realized that they can't afford it. They realized the universal healthcare is a TAX BURDEN. Now just imagine bringing that concept to work for the entire country - IT WILL BE THE NEXT BIG ECONOMIC DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN (It will take us over 50 years to recover from the disaster we've on us currently i.e. IRAQ)

Posted by: alwin.zachariah | February 7, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!
Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

If you think that having health insurance through your job means you won't have to pay Hilary's mandatory health insurance premiums - think again! According to a September 18 Associated Press article, Clinton said in an interview with the AP: "... she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress." Go Obama!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070918-0856-clinton-apinterview.html

Posted by: bluefusion | February 7, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Will you people please read up about Rezco in the Chicago Sun Times, and acknowledge Hillary's photo-op before you show your ignorance? Hillary has answers like a trained seal, and a history of FAILURE in addition to her derivative career. The Clintons are lying slime! See, their library and the records they won't reveal; whitewater, lewinsky, the source of her 5M (likely bill's dirty deals with the middle east and china).

Most of Obama's donations ARE from people giving amounts of $200 or less; he has started more than a campaign it is a MOVEMENT. It is only a cult to people too dumb to buck the status quo even though our country is in shambles. HALF of Hillary's donors have already given the max.

I am not worried about Obama's middle name. Racists who don't want to vote for someone who is NOT Muslim because he sounds Muslim are worthless. As are racists who don't want to vote for someone black, asian, white, latino, or sexist people who won't vote for a woman.

I will vote for ANYONE who is the best candidate.

I am going to stop trying to convince fools. Please, just cry half as hard as Hillary did before each big primary, when she bites it.

Posted by: Marie4 | February 7, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the Company Ho! The More the Money, the more the Ho!

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary isn't afraid to fight, because she's fighting for you!

Posted by: niksiz | February 7, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

When is the Washington Post investigae the Resnik-Obama real estate deal. What did Resnik expect in return for his favor. Carl Bernstein --start being a reporter again. You are turning into a hack. It's sickening how you describe the Obama movement. You sound star struck. You are slobbering when you mention his name. And remember Oprah is the same person that promoted that book about a reformed druggie. It was fiction. Obama is like a Sunday preacher. Preachers are good and naive people give away their money. Obama is smooth and we need to know if he's the real deal.

Posted by: promonorm | February 7, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Well jburke...

I suggest that you immediately set about changing your registration to Republican and by all means vote for John McCain....He has a great chance of carrying Massachusetts...as I'm sure you will agree. And, good luck to both of you.

Meanwhile back to reality...the numbers in the Democratic primaries across the country do not seem to support you contention that because Obama's MIDDLE name is Hussein, your friends in "many other states" will not vote for him.

That is a very intelligent and enlightened point of view...you and your friends must be quite a crowd -- do you still where your sheets and hoods when you go out together at night...

How's that cross burning thing workin' for ya?

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 7, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

>>chayne123 wrote: "I wonder if people understand what it really means for Carl Rove it his recent Time Magazine article to say Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain. "

Well, judging from the coverage the Post gives, its conservative op-end writers and commentators are altruistically doing the Democratic party by daily publishing articles where Republicans carefully explain to Democrats why Obama is so much of a better choice for their nominee. See, e.g. Ignatius: "The Choice of a Generation" posted today. George F. Will also helpfully posted an opinion piece about why Obama is such a good nominee for Democrats this Fall.

Democratic primary voters are so lucky that conservative media is so outgoing with helpful advice for how they should vote in the primary, to help the Democrats be more competitive in the Fall election against McCain.


Posted by: AsperGirl | February 7, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

>>chayne123 wrote: "I wonder if people understand what it really means for Carl Rove it his recent Time Magazine article to say Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain. "

Well, judging from the coverage the Post gives, its conservative op-end writers and commentators are altruistically doing the Democratic party by daily publishing articles where Republicans carefully explain to Democrats why Obama is so much of a better choice for their nominee. See, e.g. Ignatius: "The Choice of a Generation" posted today. George F. Will also helpfully posted an opinion piece about why Obama is such a good nominee for Democrats this Fall.

Democratic primary voters are so lucky that conservative media is so outgoing with helpful advice for how they should vote in the primary, to help the Democrats be more competitive in the Fall election against McCain.


Posted by: AsperGirl | February 7, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton = McCain Presidency. Any ticket with a Clinton is doomed in the general election. The Clinton are finished as a political force outside the Democratic Party. In some parts of the country Clinton = Scandals.

Google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons. The Clintons have refused to release the list of donors to the Clinton Library Fund and Hillary's White House papers. so much for being "fully vetted."

Hillary refused to debate Jonathan Tasini in 2006 during the Senatorial Primary in New York. Now she is whining about Obama not wanting to debate her.

If you care about ethics, integrity, morals - then vote to reject the Clintons. Remember Travelgate, March Rich Money for pardon scandal, Hugh Rodham money for pardon scandal, travelgate etc. Our country deserves better, reject the Clintons.

Posted by: ezboy03 | February 7, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

I would hardly call myself a "have," but Blue Moon whatever, I did contribute 100 dollars last night to Hillary Clinton. I did it from the savings I have from taking my own lunch to work rather than eating out. I am not a latte drinking suburbanite nor a credit card using young person. I did it because after a lot of due diligence researching both candidates, I think she has better ideas and more concrete plans on things that interest me or that I think would be good for the citizens of our country. Nothing less, nothing more. When it comes to money, I am conservative about using more than I can pay for with cash except for very large purposes such as house and car. I have credit ratings over 800 and would not dream of doing on-line banking or credit card purchases. I submitted my 100 dollars by calling the headquarters and using my debit card so the money was immediately accounted for and not something I would get a bill for next month. I refuse to add to our nation's and personal debt. I do wonder how many of Obama's voters are using their parent's money to contribute. My largest salary in my life is $50,000, even with a Master's degree, because I chose to go into a people oriented field funded by tax payers. I don't have $2300 to give to candidates (although I do have that amount available for other things, but when I last looked on-line, a lot of people in my community have been listed as contributers to Obama in fact contributed $2300 personal and their businesses also did, so please do not assume all of you are giving nickels and dimes to your candidate. Like most campaigns, people spending a buck for a pin may be counted as contributers for people purposes while their may be many sending in $2300 and few sending in $10. We will not know exact numbers of who sent in what or how contributers were counted until after the whole thing is over in most cases. Number of "contributer" announcements are part of the political"game" and I take little stock in them...Call me jaded or call me old enough to have seen a trick or two used to gain publicity advantage. Please reduce the rhetoric and and concentrate on what you have knowledge about fully enough to not make possibly erroneous statements. Whatever happend in thehnext few months, we all will either have to come together or, we will have 4 more years of Bush policies. I understand there are many Obama followers who will turn and vote for McCain if Obama does not win the nomination and all I can say to them is that their chant about and belief in change will reflect a hollow cultic devotion to a man rather than to a principle because McCain offers no change, but if Clinton would win, I believe she knows now that change would be a requirement for her to gain your trust and support and there is nothing like a good scare to rein one in.

Posted by: kansasgal1 | February 7, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Did you know apart from being impeached President Clinton was de-barred as a lawyer?
Oh Lord!

Posted by: FebM | February 7, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Some people thrive on personal attacks of the candidates. Research has shown that this is the biggest turn-off to intelligent American voters. And, actually, this is also an important part of Senator Obama's message. Obama was not at all "threatening" with regard to the fact that his supporters may not choose to vote for Clinton. This is his opinion, and he is entitled to express his opinion. Also, Obama is not afraid of the Republicans or anyone else. He is strong, he inspires hope, and he is the very first candidate (before everyone else) who stated that he wants to unite this country. He does not waste his time running down others. He is too busy delivering his message of hope and detailing his ideas for a better America and a better world! Because of Obama's campaign, millions of people, including myself, want to be better and to do more for our country. He engenders a profound love of America and all of its people. I would call the qualities that Senator Obama exhibites "Presidential"!

Posted by: rforscher | February 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I know that you don't think that the Clintons' hands are clean. Their job is getting money from folk l--by any means necessary.

Rezko money that Barack received was given to charity. Can't say that about Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: alberta | February 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama, he's getting $30 million, then $5 million, from all these "POOR" people.

Shoot! How come all these "POOR" people have that much left over?

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

What is with the Obama campaign's count of delegates? www.barackobama.com is still claiming that he won Super Tuesday and leads in the delegate count which is not what the Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN and other sources are saying. Looks like he has taken the section of the web site down that gave a state by state listing.

-- Disenfranchised in Michigan :(

Posted by: djstates | February 7, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama's drug use is a non-issue. I appreciate that he has written memoirs that give us insight into his character and life, before the presidential campaign. Let us dispell other vicious lies: He is not Muslim, anti-sematic, or accepting dirty money.

I will not list HRC's skeletons but that they are plentiful and growing e.g., when the source of her money comes out.

Obama IS electable. He won the popular vote; the most states; and more delegates. He went from an unknown to a serious contender.

Clinton IS divisive according to everyone but her supporters. There are republicans willing to vote for, and organize for Obama. Can you say the same of her? He has support from people of all backgrounds. Billary is unethical, and ruins our foreign image as well. How can we critize monarchs and dynasties then elect them?

Open YOUR eyes Clinton supporters; she's nothing but a hack without Bill, no merit of her own, no career of her own, and she will NEVER be president.

Posted by: Marie4 | February 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

As far as who is giving money to Obama, it is not POOR people. Be for real. Poor people don't have money to give. Wise up!

Posted by: alberta | February 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from," Obama said. "But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down. I've disclosed my income tax returns."

Rezko? Exelon? Big coal?

Posted by: WylieD | February 7, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

From what I have observed of the debates, his IQ is significantly higher than HRC -- a gap of 30-40 points would not surprise me.

----------

Are you kidding me? She always has a quick answer, it is Barack's painfully long "um"-filled responses that seem low-IQ to me. Regardless, I refuse to sink to the level of the Obamaniacs. I agree with a comment made earlier that Barack threatening that his supporters would withhold support from Clinton is ludicrous. And he calls himself the uniter? But then he played the race card and cried to liberal Democrats and black voters in order to isolate Hillary. You can call Hillary sly and divisive. But Barack is downright dangerous for the party. And petty, I should add.

One more thing, Barack is more electable? I am from Massachusetts but have friends from states where the talk among some Democrats and independents is that his middle name is "Hussein." Also, while the war is an important issue among Democrats, it is not going to be an important issue in the general. That issue will be the economy, which Obama has no experience with because he has been in the Senate for just over TWO years. Electable? Really? The Republicans will swift boat him in a second.

Finally, let me add that I am a Massachusetts Democrat who has never considered voting for a Republican. But if Barack continues his petty, divisive politics and then lies about "change," I will be proud to support John McCain in November.

Posted by: jburke | February 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama does not need Billary on his ticket...she's plummeting to earth and desperate. Her union cronies and the big old school democratic machines in New York and California gave her solid wins...but she has no such infrastructure in the primaries ahead... now it will be mano a mano.

Meanwhile, the ranting in the WaPo every day is from Clinton stooges calling for a "dream team" with the troll in the top spot.

You'll find few, if any, Obama supporters calling for a dream team because they know that Clinton is an albatross they do not want to be anywhere near.

Obama supporters know that the Clintons and George W. Bush are widely recognized to be opposite sides of the same evil, twisted, gridlocked, politics as usual coin.

A pox on both their houses and the politics of rage they both love.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | February 7, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes that Obama is not smart has no brains. This guy is brilliant. Hillary is smart but I have had conversations w/people who know Barack or has been around him and he is extremely brilliant. He may not have all of the content in his head that Hillary has (she is much older and has been around politics on another level) however, do not fool yourself, Barack is super brilliant.

I am not sure why people say that he is not a good debater. I think that he is a great debater. He is not stuttering he is trying to give a complete answer that is not just a sound bite. Hillary has a strong, loud voice so she comes off as the strong debater. If you are smart, start listening to Barack's answers and you will see that he is on top of each of his responses and gives complete well-thought out answers.

Finally, Hillary cannot be trusted. Sorry, she just can't. Not going to go into all of the reasons why, but do your own homework. She was not able to be found guilty in all of the GATES because they are so viciously dishonest and are true tricksters. I do believe that she would be a good president do a certain point, but her heart is not right.

Posted by: alberta | February 7, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I think.
Obama's getting a lot of MONEY!
From "POOR" people.

Sounds RIGHT!

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter, I don't think I'm blind to the shortcomings of her campaign. Yes, Bill may have gone overboard in SC. Yes, she's accepted donations from many large corporations. And for the love of God, YES I KNOW SHE VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR. All that aside, I still feel that she is the superior candidate. As a student who has done a lot of work and research in the health care field, I think she has a far superior health care plan than Obama.

I'm not saying he does poorly in debates, but I think her answers are presented with less of the political rhetoric that Obama is constantly repeating, and I think her answers are much more concrete.

We all know, that they can say whatever they want at this point, and in both candidates we have reasons to question how they will execute their plans. And even though Obama comes across as the more liberal of the two, both his and Clinton's records show that they had to compromise in order to accomplish what they've done. But, I must say that she seems to be much more forward about being less liberal, which is consistent with her record, while Obama isn't. Now before I get ambushed by a group of crazed maniacs, who seem to feed off their deep hate for Hillary rather than their love for Obama, when you're attacking me please don't bring up the petty things that have been mentioned in previous posts. Political discourse should be constructive, not hateful and illogical. I talk to my friends who support Obama all the time, and learn things without hearing psychotic rants.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Posted by: sonia_sekhar | February 7, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I've wathced politics from many lenses. As a South African resident (but American citizen) I got to vote in South Africa's first free election. I've never seen a statesman as potent as Nelson Mandela, until now.

Obama is our Mandela.

Let me give credit where credit is due. George Bush did the one thing that the Clinton administration never could ... it made the Clinton administration look good.

I'm not ready for another irresponsible Clinton administration. I'm ready for a true leader, like Nelson Mandela, like Barack Obama, like maybe even Ghandi, maybe even like Ronald Reagon (in effect, not policy).

Look at the list: we have McCain, Hillary (who goes by that name, rather than the Clinton name,) and Obama.

I appreciate McCain, but the statesman who emerges is none other than Barack Obama.

I'll give another donation to Obama tonight.

Best,
Have I mentioned I'm a supporter of Obama?

Posted by: jmckee | February 7, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Have you all seen the article in the new york times? It seems that Obama has taken money from Exelon execs and LIED to the people in Iowa during his campaign about legislation that he supposedly passed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Posted by: sb9977 | February 7, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama keeps saying he wants to bring "real change" to Washington.

Obama's church that he is closely associated with is anti-Israel.

I wonder what "change" he has in mind? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 7, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Wait until her relationship with her assistant comes out to haunt her. Yes, she is in a lesbian relationship. Bill and Hillary are in Business together not a Marriage. Thats why he has his bank accounts and she has hers.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Posted by: MsRita | February 7, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

You all sound so nit picky no wonder our country is in the mess it is in. Just wondering How many of you voted for the fool that is in office now? How many of you voted the second time for him as not to vote for Kerry? THINK!!! No single person can unite a country that bickers within its own party.. not Hillary or Obama ... Until the American PEOPLE as a whole stand up and stop the crap join together!!!!!!!! you all sound like children playing on a playground. Its time to grow up!!!

Posted by: mickey2174 | February 7, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: awg1967
Wrote: If you want to know who is doing well in a campaign watch the money not the spin

Romney had millions in his campaign. McCain was literally broke last summer. I think that proves that money isn't everything.

Posted by: badger3 | February 7, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if people understand what it really means for Carl Rove it his recent Time Magazine article to say Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain. I've also heard this same rhetoric from several Republicans since old Carl had his say.

Why would such a snake want her to be the DEM choice?

It's because she is the only one Rove thinks McCain can beat...

Posted by: chayn123 | February 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Hello...It is time for a change. If it's McCain or Obama. Enouth is enough. We have had 16 years of the same people residing in OUR White House. We need to look at the big picture. Bill and Hillary have already live in OUR house. Bill will be in charge and she is now playing the pitty game with having no money. Enough is Enough with BILLARY.


End of story.

Posted by: MsRita | February 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect to Sen. Clinton, I think if she was really patriotic and cared deeply for the future of this nation, she would step aside and endorse the inspirational leader, Sen. Obama. Not because she is not qualified, in fact she will make a wonderful president, but because what America needs right now is far beyond a wonderful president. I think it is the worst mistake in her political career that she is running against the will and future well-being of this nation. It is so sad that a great person like her is blinded by her personal ambitions.

Posted by: kaveh_vejdani | February 7, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

All of you need to take notice.

I read a dissertation by a person posting on the Washington Post board that said that the church Obama goes to in Illinois is very, very radical and:

Obama's church is anti-Israel.

I was shocked at that long comment made on that board today.

The article was very alarming. I e-mailed that long comment to all of the news media because the people should be aware. If anyone wants a copy of that I will send it to you. e-mail me at Iowatreasures@Hotmail.com.
I have been worried about Obama before reading that comment. I don't know who the person was, but they had a lot of detail in what Obama's church is all about, and it is enough to frighten anyone.

I usually do not view people's videos that they bring forth, and this comment is not a video, although one is offered, I think, but it is a thorough list about Obama and that church.

I would rather you would read that for yourself, so get in touch and I will e-mail it to you. I e-mailed it to myself awhile ago, before they shut that board down.

There is enough information in that person's comment to follow through on his information and check it out for yourself.

I wish the media would check it out, but you know they won't.

I just worry that Obama may be anti-Israel, as that person said, and then what will we do if Obama gets into the White House and has access to the nuclear arsenal.

It may sound far fetched to some of you, but after you read what he wrote, you may become a believer, like me. At least I wish the media would look into it for us, or maybe some of you have access to what this guy is talking about. If you do, I wish you would e-mail me and tell me what you know.

Clinton's campaign can't take on this issue - or they would be fried by the media, so we will have to look into it ourselves.

gw.

We all need to do whatever we can to vet Obama, the media isn't doing it. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 7, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Even people who voted for Bill Clinton, as I did twice in the 1990s, know that he and Hillary lie. They will do or say anything to get ahead. I've had quite enough of the Clinton drama, thank you.

Obama is not perfect, but he is clearly the more ethical, the smarter, the more internationally experienced, and the more mature candidate of the two.

Having a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1980 is unhealthy for our democracy. It really is time for a change, to use a much overused word in this campaign. Oh, for Olympia Snowe or some other such mentally healthy woman to be in the running to be the first female president...

Posted by: ahatcher | February 7, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton is not cheap and rude. Her website, just like all of them, has always highlighted where to donate. It's not new. I see Obama got tired of playing the race card so he thought he'd bait the media into pestering the Clinton's about their tax returns - though I know they release them publicly as well. Is any of this what matters? No. Hillary Clinton is the candidate. Substance matters. Watch the debates. Pep rallies are loud and Obama doesn't even answer questions. No one quotes him anymore, if you read, because he says nothing new. He's got no depth. Watch the debate - when he is pressed on issues, he give a cheap shot to divert attention. This is a defense mechanism to hide his weaknesses. Do not be fooled by melodic speeches and Kennedy endorsements.

Posted by: Susan9 | February 7, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Plus, she's fat.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 7, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY IS COOL WITH A THREESOME

Posted by: okonge1 | February 7, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

What a title: "Obama agrees to debates" - the Washington Post is a joke. Last I checked both agree, but the post insists on its Obama First reporting. I think I've found more un-biased reporting on Fox News lately.

Posted by: dabigpbr | February 7, 2008 09:08 PM


Isn't this rich - if a website or newspaper doesnt present heavily slanted stories in favor of the candidate that you like, that its 'biased'. I think you've learned a thing or two more from fox news than any of us.

1 - as super tuesday draws to a close the clinton campaign challenges obama to a debate a week for the next 4 or 5 weeks.

2 - obama accepts two debates.

3 - washington post posts story - "obama agrees to debates with clinton"

easy enough to follow for you?

Posted by: perryair | February 7, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

A few things...

I am constantly disappointed in campaign ads and candidate debates: I don't CARE how much weed the other guy smoked or how he voted when he was in Congress...stop pointing fingers and tell me about YOUR politics so I can make an informed decision about who to vote for!! Then, I sat down to watch the Republican debates last week, and had to listen to Romney tell McCain he wasn't a conservative because he (McCain) voted to protect the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge...since when is giving half a damn about pristine wilderness grounds for ejection from the GOP? Look at Teddy Roosevelt...a Republican and one of the greatest conservationists in our nation's history.

Listen to us! Supporting one candidate does not require you to insult the other candidate, nor does supporting one party require you to insult the other party. I personally would love to see an Obama/McCain ticket (wouldn't happen in a million years, I know)...whatever happened to bipartisanship? To compromise? To "one nation"? Divisiveness and rancor will get us nowhere. What this country needs is honesty and transparency. No matter who wins the election, I for one, will be glad to have a leader who grasps the English language and can use it to inspire the citizens!

Posted by: dominot | February 7, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

======

What a title: "Obama agrees to debates" - the Washington Post is a joke. Last I checked both agree, but the post insists on its Obama First reporting. I think I've found more un-biased reporting on Fox News lately.

Posted by: dabigpbr | February 7, 2008 09:08 PM
=========

Well if you've been following the news lately, you'll known that the Clinton camp agreed to participate on more debates when Super Tuesday results were coming in. Clinton even agreed to appear on Fox News! Of course it takes 2 to tango, so Obama at first said that he didn't hear people clamoring for more debates. As you know, he's quite busy campaigning in all those states.

Eventually (I'm not privy to the negotiations between the campaigns), Obama said yes to 2 debates (no Fox debate though, as far as we know).

So yes, O Paranoid One, the headline is correct, Obama agreed to the debates. Relax.

Posted by: alarico | February 7, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

THE CLINTONS' NEED THEIR HOUSE BACK, PLEASE!. PRINCESS CHELSEA IS IN THE WAITING,I THOUGHT KINGSHIP IS WHY WE LEFT AND CAME TO AMERICA

Posted by: okonge1 | February 7, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Can we please get past throwing punches and debate what's going on. For heaven sakes, ya all sound like a bunch of republicans.

When it comes to healthcare, I still think it needs to be a single payer system and neither one is talking about it. To many folks will fall through the crakes if not. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want a mandate attached to any healthcare plan....

I also don't hear much about family law from either candidate. However, on Senator Obama's site he does have whisperings of some fairer policy towards Dads that do pay their child support. Maybe with Obama as president, dads will get a fairer shake. Hillary actually scares me when it comes to family law. I could go on and on about family law, our family law courts and the billions of waste that is a direct result of our government pitting divorcing couples against each other, but I won't....

JOJO

Yes We Can:)

Posted by: jboseck | February 7, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants debates because her small donor base is way smaller and she is cash-strapped. Obama needs to get his message out to the voters, he doesn't need to worry about "I'll do anything to win" Hillary Clinton. Hillary's plans for "the economy" are hardly relevant, the President has as only a minor impact. However, the President can order US troops out of Iraq. Hillary made a calculated political decicision to back the war, she can't be trusted again. Barack was against it from the start.

Obama in '08

Posted by: FelipeV | February 7, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Man, you Hillary supporters are just so silly. I really don't get it. First off, how many Democratic Obama supporters are/were fans of Bill Clinton? All of them, I would guess - I certainly was, and am grateful for what he accomplished. So, don't talk to us Obama supporters like we are House Republicans circa 1998. The thing is, the Clintons' time has come and gone - that attack-dog style of politics is not what we need in this country right now. I'm sure that I speak for other Obama supporters when I say how disappointed I was in the Clinton campaign when Bill lashed out against Obama before South Carolina. Well, we saw a side of the Clintons that others had told us about, but we had denied existed.

Just read the comments by the Hillary people - they are blind to reality and willing to play dumb in order to score cheap points. Take ericscam2's comment above - either you are completely uniformed or you are feigning ignorance. Obama is stating the facts - many Democrats, like myself, will of course support our nominee no matter who it is. However, Obama has attracted the support of a large number of independents and even Republicans that WILL NOT support Hillary in November. In fact, close to 40% of the public will not vote for her under any circumstance! Why would we, as a party, want to nominate someone that alienates close to half the country! Just look at the polls or read an article or two.

And calebcs says, "There are two reasons he dodges the debates, one, he obviously does very well face to face with people, and two, he does very poorly in the debates up until now." Are you serious? You really can't be because, first of all this whole article is about how Obama has accepted two debates. You are right though, he does well face-to-face with people - so good work there. And to your last point, Obama did great against Hillary one-on-one! Peronally, I think he won, especially on the issue of the Iraq War, but you might disagree. Point being, it was a good debate. Both candidates did well and talked about real policy. I'm supporting Obama in the primary and am glad to debate the merits of each candidate, but will not resort to making things up like a lot of Clinton supporters these days.

Posted by: jps78 | February 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

As an independent, I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat. But I am sick of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton presidents. Therefore, if Clinton wins the primary, I will be voting for McCain. Many independents feel as I do. Dems should keep this in mind. Clinton has her strengths, but if she wins the nomination, Dems are giving Republicans the White House for at least four more years.

P.S. tigerjcs, Clinton will divide America, not Obama. About half the nation strongly opposes her and would fight her even after she won.

Posted by: micahch7v7 | February 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I certainly hope that Washington State goes for Obama. Lived and worked there for 27 years and have since gone off to retire in the sun. Bush, Clinton, Bush, is just like the movie "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray when every day repeats. It's time to end this movie starring the Bush's and Clinton's. Everything has a beginning and an end.
Go Obama!

Posted by: bunkerhill | February 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Glad Obama has now decided to take Clinton up on her offer for more debates. With a race so close we need to see these two candidates together engaged in the issues.

Posted by: chriszick | February 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

THE CLINTONS:
ANTI-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

NO CLUE WHY ANY PERSON OF COLOR OR GENDER WOULD SUPPORT THE CLINTONS. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS WHAT GAVE MANY WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR CONSIDERATION FOR SUCCESS. ANY MAN SHOULD WANTS HIS WIFE OR DAUGHTER
TO BE CLIMBING UPWARDS. IT PROMOTED DIVERSITY.

THE CLINTONS:
ANTI-AMERICAN BY ENDORSING NAFTA

NO CLUE WHY ANY AMERICAN WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT A CLINTON WHO APPROVED NAFTA WHICH SHIFTED AMERICAN JOBS FROM THE U.S. TO OTHER COUNTRIES FOR 0.10 CENT PER HOUR JOBS. NOW THIS CRAZY CRYING WENCH WANTS TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS.
BUSH WASN'T TOO BRIGHT, BUT HE TOOK THE BLAME FOR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS CAUSED BE THE CLINTONS.

SINCE BILLARY CAN'T DAZZLE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH BRILLIANCE, SHE BAFFLES HER VOTERS WITH BS & TEARS

Posted by: blackbutterfly1971 | February 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Its really cute that Obama supporters have such a crush on him,
but this isn't high-school, its the real world.

Obama is un-electable.

If Obama is the candidate, Eric Clapton's song "cocaine" will be blasting from every speaker in the country.

Republicans will flood TV with ads about "a giant snorting sound"

Obama's own words garentee that he has absolutely no chance in a national election.

His bragging about "blow" will blow the election for him.

We can get him in as VP, but not as President.

The sooner Obama supporters wake up and realize that, the better chance there is for Clinton/Obama.

Otherwise, the Democrats may be better off without someone with as colorful a "drug history" as Obama on the ticket.

Republicans will repeat this issue over, and over, and over, they will never let it drop.

Remember what Republicans did with "didn't inhale?"

Imagine what they'll do with: "Of course I inhaled, that was the whole point!!!"

Yep. Those are Obama's own words, and the Republicans will make sure that no American ever forgets them.

Obama is unelectable in a general election.

He'd taken way too many drugs to be acceptable to mainstream America.

Can you imagine kids saying, "Obama took Cocaine, why can't I?"

Mothers can.

America is not going to elect an admitted cocaine abuser.

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to the issue of this article. More debates (do we really need them?) and fundraising. The 2 candidates are very similar in policy details but different in personality and style.

What does giving $5mill of her own money say about Hillary's attitudes about Campaign Finance Reform, especially when Bill Clinton is quoted as saying in December that funding one's own campaign would be against the spirit of reform? Hmm. I am all for Obama's style - get in touch with the real people of this nation and raise money honestly. If another debate is needed to prove his strengths, then fine. I am sure he'll out-perform her with his sincerity, honesty, and ability to connect with the real issues at hand. No more divisiveness. That is what she is all about. Obama is the opposite of that.

As for the previous posts about endorsements - well, aside from the reality that high profile endorsers are most likely to be super-delegates, who really cares about them? Be independent, intelligent, read about the candidates' stands on the issues, and make up your own mind.

Posted by: bigdoorprize69 | February 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Democrats. This is good training for Obama and for Clinton. Right now Obama is (by just a little) more likely to be the nominee according to the trade sites which are politically impartial.
If you want to know who is doing well in a campaign watch the money not the spin. And the money is now 54-46 for Obama. The reasons are because of the fund-raising money gap, the inability of Clinton to appeal beyond her base while Obama has made significant increases in the white and black vote. She has not made any increases in any demographic over the last month. Clinton has increased the turnout vote in her base demographics but not INCREASED the % in any way. That is what is driving the money towards Obama.
Women are voting only 51-46 for Clinton over Obama. That is not enough and the trend lines point to an Obama nomination. But it will be very close. I still give Clinton the edge because of her husband's connections. Kind of ironic actually.

Posted by: awg1967 | February 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not a great debater and I would've done the debates AFTER Ohio and TX, let her try and catch up to him in advertising. He stammers and seems not to know what he wants to say. It's a sign that his brain moves to quickly, a sign of BRILLIANCE. My boss stammers and yet in his life time he's raised a about 10 BILLION dollars and help fund the startups of companies like Apple -he too is brilliant.
So am I for that matter :) because I voted for OBAMA.

he is a WE person not an I person. he realizes that in order to fix things the whole nation has to want to and be engaged. Hillary says "I will do this I will do that, I can do this, etc" Obama says We can do it. so not only is he brilliant he's humble - the true sign of a leader

Posted by: TheUrbanRevolution | February 7, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I am truly confused about this as I like the Clinton brand name and the idea of Bill in the White House, but wonder if brand is enough. I keep asking myself how someone could possiby run our $10 trillion US economy, when she has to put $5m from her pocket into a campaign funded by corporate donors (unfortunate reality), literally RUNNING A bankrupt campaign. Obama's campaign, ON THE OTHER HAND, is not bankrupt and well managed (unlike Kerry's or Clinton's). It gets its money it seems by simple people like me who throw in $25.

I ask myself how someone will lead as Commander in Chief when they have PROVEN poor judgement - decide it is a good idea to get into an obviously ideological war with made-up reasons. OBAMA had the right intuition regarding the war when it was uncomfortable not to support the war.

BY THE WAY - ASK MYSELF: Why should America not finally elect someone smart, who can stand on his own feet, has the judgement and courage to decide on its behalf. OBAMA also is such a savvy consensus builder who can work the Republicans. Do you think Clinton is going to be able to convince the Republicans any more than Obama on any issue? They hate her guts. They respect Obama. Ask any Republican friend.

Finally, I think simple people vote with their wallets. It looks like they pretty much trust their campaign money and future with Obama.

Posted by: yagmurcali | February 7, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The reason behind the difference in their debating styles is essentially the difference in their thought processes and even their personalities. Hillary is a sharp, quick-on-her-feet, resourceful thinker. Think of fencing as an analogy: she's always en garde, always on her feet as she thrusts, parries and feints. She is the quintessential warrior queen; she WILL do anything to win, but to her, it's for a good cause. Obama is the quintessential philosopher-prince: his thinking is deeper, analytical, more deliberate than most. The apparent "stutter" that he sometimes displays in debates that drives some of his detractors batty is the result of the constant "if-then-but" dialogue that goes on in his professorial brain. He is a constitutional lawyer and a first amendment guy, and his thinking (and his legislative record) is often a reflection of this.

They both have workable policies: Obama's website has everything we need to know about what his issues are, so there's no excuse for people who are too lazy to read and go off half-cocked about how "he's all bluster and no substance" -- READ THE WEBSITE. And there's no reason to assume that Hillary is not compassionate and incapable of compromise. She is; her record in the Senate proves that.

Anyway, they're both outstanding candidates and, let's face it, this time around, we Democrats have an embarrassment of riches. But the question stands: after Bush and his largely id/ego based tenure, what kind a mindset do we want in the Oval Office?

Posted by: indranee | February 7, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I am truly confused about this as I like the Clinton brand name and the idea of Bill in the White House, but wonder if brand is enough. I keep asking myself how someone could possiby run our $10 trillion US economy, when she has to put $5m from her pocket into a campaign funded by corporate donors (unfortunate reality), literally RUNNING A bankrupt campaign. Obama's campaign, ON THE OTHER HAND, is not bankrupt and well managed (unlike Kerry's or Clinton's). It gets its money it seems by simple people like me who throw in $25.

I ask myself how someone will lead as Commander in Chief when they have PROVEN poor judgement - decide it is a good idea to get into an obviously ideological war with made-up reasons. OBAMA had the right intuition regarding the war when it was uncomfortable not to support the war.

BY THE WAY - ASK MYSELF: Why should America not finally elect someone smart, who can stand on his own feet, has the judgement and courage to decide on its behalf. OBAMA also is such a savvy consensus builder who can work the Republicans. Do you think Clinton is going to be able to convince the Republicans any more than Obama on any issue? They hate her guts. They respect Obama. Ask any Republican friend.

Finally, I think simple people vote with their wallets. It looks like they pretty much trust their campaign money and future with Obama.

Posted by: yagmurcali | February 7, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama agrees to the debate is the headline because he initially did not want to debate. In fact, it was Mrs. Clinton who suggested several debates. Most Obama fans were saying that Obama didn't need to debate, that he didn't have to tell people his views, He didn't need to tell people how he was going to get things don, we should know everything by just listening to his speeches. It seemed to me he just couldn't figure a way out without looking scared.

Posted by: catmomtx | February 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

If only the newspapers published what really goes on behind the scenes in Obama's campaign. He seems like such a nice, inspiring man, doesn't he?

Maybe the debaters can ask Obama about his latest dirty power tactic: Obama is letting it out that he will use the local black voting base, who he seems to be able to whip into a frenzy against the Clintons at will, to retaliate against any superdelegates that vote against him or say they will vote against him.

Posted by: AsperGirl | February 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY WILL BE READY TO GET HER MONEY BACK ON DAY ONE

Posted by: okonge1 | February 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton says she's vetted, Obama is not. What I read is, "Bill and I have so many scandals in our backyard that Republicans have already had a field day with us, while Obama has hardly any!". The primary and preprimary campaign has already gone on long enough that if she or the press or the Republicans can't find something truly scandalous about Obama, may be there is not something all that objectionable to be found and fussed about. And if Barack can withstand the Clinton swiftboating machine and remain perfectly aloft, we should not worry about his capacity to acquit himself very well in the general election.

Posted by: khan77 | February 7, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

America is not listening to Oprah or the Ted and Carolyn Kennedy. Instead they listen to the debates. Obama couldn't win a debate with Hillary. He is full of empty talk, with no substance. Hillary has provided roadmaps for economic recovery and universal healthcare. Our nation is in recession, and we need her leadership and skill to get us out of all these problems.
Obama is a snake oil saleman. He promised "change" in Illinois -- but failed to deliver anything. He did not inititate or support any fundamental changes that would improve the lives of Chicagoan. He benefited politically and financially from the corrupt system. Obama has done nothing as a senator except cutting deals to enrich himself as Rezko partner. Michelle tripled her salary at the hospital job immediately after he was elected to the senate. The Obamas are scam artists with the smooth talk.
Hillary has been scrutinized for century and they come out with nothing. I trust Hillary more than Obama.
Hillary 08!

Posted by: tigerjcs | February 7, 2008 07:48 PM

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

Great, a comment about a lack of substance which itself lacks substance.

Obama has more to say on the issues than HRC.

From what I have observed of the debates, his IQ is significantly higher than HRC -- a gap of 30-40 points would not surprise me.

Posted by: mnjam | February 7, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Clinton layed her trap methodically.

1. She announced her web site at the end of the last debate, then at her 2/5 speech.

2. Then she totally revamped her web site. Putting a large donate and sign up button right in front of your face on the front page.

3. Suddenly we learn that she had to LOAN not DONATE her campaign money. Boo hoo, poor me I have no money.

4. Now she is challenging the little girls with the least money to help save her. How cunning, how Clintonian. She had never cared about the support of them before except when it came to their vote. The big girls took care of her just fine.

5. And voila she can now claim that she has such great supporters, just look how much money I've raised on line.

It's too bad that the warm fuzzy woman the little girls think they are electing is just another cold calculating man at heart.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 7, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

What a title: "Obama agrees to debates" - the Washington Post is a joke. Last I checked both agree, but the post insists on its Obama First reporting. I think I've found more un-biased reporting on Fox News lately.

Posted by: dabigpbr | February 7, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can get us universal health care? Based on what? That she fell flat on her face when she was first lady. That somehow makes her experienced to get us health care this time around.

Let us not forget her personality was so toxic even some democrats were oppposed to her plan. And let us not also forget that the reson the republicans took over the house and senate while Bill was in office was because the Clinton's are so toxic. And we saw their true personality unfold in New Hampshire and before South Carolina.

She might still win, because she has a handle on the super delegates. And even if Barack wins more delegates out of elections she would still take a victory that went against the will of the voters with these super delegates because she feels as if she is entitled to be president. See how she tries to claim victory in Michigan. I mean, Obama wasn't even on the ballot because He, Edwards and Hillary pledged not to campaign there. Hillary starts losing and goes against her pledge. Typical.

And don't forget, if not for Hillary and Bush's war, we'd have an extra trillion bucks hanging around to spend on universal health care.

Great idea, Hillary. This war in Iraq. What's next? War with Iran to prove you are tough?

Posted by: edzo2 | February 7, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter. That being said, either candidate is an acceptable choice. I am glad I belong to a party in which either an African-American or a Woman will be the nominee. I personally believe that Obama is a more motivating candidate. I also believe Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally smart, tough leader. I think slinging vicious jabs at either candidate only serves McCain et al. As Democrats, we need to get our act together. Individuals should vote their conscience then support whoever the best candidate (woman or man). November will require all of us, not just Obama supporters or Clinton supports!!

Posted by: josephrussellwilliams | February 7, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama is clueless; he naively believes that the Republican attack machine (RAM) will be handling him with kid gloves. On the contrary. If he wins the nomination, they will shred him the way they have attacked Senator Clinton for years. No one is immune to their attacks; but Clinton is used to it and will handle the attacks quite well. Furthermore, she will win the general election. What will the attack machine use against Obama? They will repeatedly claim that he is a muslim sympathizer and ultra-liberal. They will spin these claims as liabilities into the public's mind. RAM has no shame or boundaries; it is responsible for spending millions of dollars trying to find something illegal on the Clintons. They found nothing, so they decided to drag personal issues into the public arena. Senator Clinton will bring us universal health care and strengthen our ties with our foreign allies, where she is highly respected.
"WE ARE IN THE RACE TO WIN!"

Posted by: frankyrey | February 7, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey Democrats, I've finally figured out how lose in November. I know, I know it seems nearly impossible to lose this year, what with everything going our way in the polls and all. But don't worry, I've figured it out:

Nominate Clinton. Elect McCain.

(bumper stickers to follow)

Posted by: jchermesino | February 7, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton played the classic con today but first she needed to lay the trap.

First she announced her web address at the last debate and then her speech on 2/5.

Then she revamped her web site making the donate and sign up bar front and center. Cheap and rude.

And now we learn that she had to loan her own money to the campaign, boo hoo!

Sly and classic Clinton, she never cared about the little girls donating money for her campaign. She had the big girls raising it for her.

Now suddenly she's playing the 'poor little me card'.... I have no money! And voila, the ones who have the least money are suddenly important to her. And they go on thinking she is the best woman for president. How sad.


Posted by: AverageJane | February 7, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

No teams for me, thanks.

Barack would be better supported by someone like Bill Richardson on his ticket. All of the experience and none of the baggage.

As for the debates, I'm looking forward to them! I hope it's a real debate where they get to question each other, and not some silly exchange of campaign slogans. Our country needs a good debate on the issues.

Now, I admit it, Hillary seems to do better at debates and Barack at speeches, but I see this as training for Barack for when he'll debate McCain. Hillary's words, however good they may be, unfortunately I cannot trust-- she lacks the political courage to stand for just but unpopular positions. We've all seen her flip-flop on the driver's license issue.

Anyway, debates are a good exercise for democracy, and I hope Barack learns to take a *deep breath* before he opens his mouth and stutters. It's a style issue that I find problematic, even annoying, but I think he can overcome.

Go Obama!!!

Posted by: alarico | February 7, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is an empty suit, full of airy preacher-man oratory and gas. Hillary Clinton is brilliant, experience, tough and ready to take charge.

I also HATE that Obama keeps threatening that his supporters won't support her if she wins the nomination but hers will support him!

So the guy is saying "Screw you! We'll give the election to the republicans if I don't get my way!" WHAT KIND OF ARROGANT JERK IS THAT???!

Hillary all the way. You go girl!

Posted by: ericscam2 | February 7, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I believe in Obama. I do not believe Hillary or anything she says. this is the stuff that follows her around - this is not fiction these events happened. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

Filegate
Watergate
ChinaGate
FosterGate
FBIFileGate (700 files improperly looted)
SexGate

Recent $31 Million fee from a dictator to Bill for helping with a deal and another $100 Million to go to his library. Give me a break.

Hillary's fund raising to day $6.2 Million came from a mere 35,000 folks (wealthy status quo).

Barack's came from 350,000 of us increasing to about 500,000 by next week who give small amounts incrementally.

Have's vs. Have-Nots or
Fooled and Fooled-Not

Posted by: BlueStarMom | February 7, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse


BARACK OBAMA needs NO ENDOREMENTS. As happy as I was to see that OBAMA was receiving support from the Kennedy's, Oprah and many others, I'm even happier to see that he is standing on his own, receiving much support from all sectors of the country. The more he is seen by people, the stronger his position becomes. BARACK OBAMA is the REAL DEAL. Make NO mistake about it.

I've said this throughout his campaign, what's of utmost importance for OBAMA and his supporters, is an unwavering need to...KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PRIZE! During the next round of debates, the tension and urge to attack will be strong. Avoid divisiveness at all cost. The main focus now must be the ISSUES and what's BEST FOR THIS NATION.

John McCain will undoubtedly mount a campaign which will redefine the general election process. The Democrats can not afford to let this election slip away. OBAMA and CLINTON must find a way to work through their differences, argue fairly and intelligently and prepare to support one another, once the democratic nominee has been chosen.

This notion will not settle well with those, like myself, who have supported OBAMA, 150% but, speaking from pure instinct and heart, Barack and Hillary are two of the most intelligent, well equipped and experienced candidates this country has seen in decades. We need them both to launch this wounded nation into the challenging issues ahead. There is still, albeit remote, a possibility of a CLINTON/OBAMA...OBAMA/CLINTON democratic ticket. It's not as far fetched as it sounds.

Posted by: jpkous | February 7, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I wish they'd team up. So does most of America. McCain is going to be a strong opponent. Clinton/Obama beats McCain/Anything!!!

Clinton/Obama '08 - The Unbeatable Ticket!!!

Let's Make History Together!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 7, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

"a Bill snort or two"

That's hilarious coming from an Obama supporter as he is the only candidate running that has admitted to using cocaine when he "could afford it".

Barack hasn't offered anything other than empty promises up to this point. There are two reasons he dodges the debates, one, he obviously does very well face to face with people, and two, he does very poorly in the debates up until now. Watch him, he'll dodge the question time and again with some one liner while he waits on the crowds to clap...

I am a Washington state republican but will cross party lines for the first time ever to vote for Clinton.

Posted by: calebcs | February 7, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant move by Obama: debate her on the eves of the 2 contests where she has the advantage. If she accepted this, then she's operating from a position of severe weakness.

Posted by: mcgish | February 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I thought Obama won the last debate and may have won a few others. She comes off as shrill and desperate, he appears composed and presidential.

Posted by: mcgish | February 7, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

The problem with people in general is that they just look at things from their point of view. Thats the reason for everything thats wrong with this world.

Clinton is strong during debates, no doubt about it. Hillary supporters you need to know one thing, she has a huge advantage that she has the Clinton name. Barack needs to make use of all the time he has to go out & meet people, people who wont be watching the debate. Also, he needs to focus on his strong points like being able to galvanize big crowds through his speeches. Imagine if Barack was behind in cash, I do not think Clinton would have pushed for the debates :)

Posted by: alexcherian321 | February 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey Tiger - if Obama didn't do any good in Illinois and specifically in South Side Chicago, then why would MOST of the people elect him to the U S Senate??? I think you have taken a Hillary happy pill or a Bill snort or two. You actually think that woman would be a beacon of hope to anyone but her own burning desire to win at all costs? So now she wants to include the delegates from FL and MI - two states where she ran UNOPPOSED - there ya go - nomination by whatever it takes. Or maybe you think winning 8 states to 14 so far is a majority. NOT! Hillary Clinton is a cold and uncaring person. Her big claim about working for the Children's Defense fund lasted only ONE YEAR - from there she became a corporate lawyer. She cares nothing about you and me or this country. All she cares about is being the first woman president and whatever it takes, lying, cheating, or yes, even stealing the election is not beyond her thought processes - to her the end will always justify the means.

Posted by: frillymail1017 | February 7, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God, ticgerjcs, you're a Clinton supporter and you're calling Obama a "scam artist with the smooth talk"? Can you keep a straight face when you say that? Talk about people in glass houses who shouldn't throw stones.

The reason that Hillary is so "battle-tested" is because the Clintons brought all those battles onto themselves in the 1990s. All they know is scorched-earth politics, scandal, and playing with the truth. Lying under oath, intimidating underlings who would dare talk to anyone about their misdeeds, pardoning a bunch shady characters...all while Hillary aided and abetted and swallowed her pride for the sake of political opportunism.

That's what you want back in the White House?

Hillary as nominee would be the greatest unifying force the Republicans could ever ask for. All their internal bickering would melt away as they rallied against one of their most-hated opponents.

So you think it's a bad thing that Obama's gotten people excited about our democracy again with a message of healing our differences? Win at all costs, eh?

Posted by: oongaboonga666 | February 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

So it's better to elect a person who told a Grand jury "I don't recall" & "I can't remember" 58 times? It's better to have a disbarred & impeached first husband? It's better to have a woman who ran her campaign out of money running our Government? It's better to have a person who will provide enough "vetted" history so we end up with another 4 years of GOP "for the rich, by the rich, in favor of the rich" person running the government? Sure, that's who I want representing me to the world - NOT!

Posted by: frillymail1017 | February 7, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I am sad. Obama is the "divisive" one. Watch him closely. He is ruining the democratic party. WATCH HIM.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871

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

America is not listening to Oprah or the Ted and Carolyn Kennedy. Instead they listen to the debates. Obama couldn't win a debate with Hillary. He is full of empty talk, with no substance. Hillary has provided roadmaps for economic recovery and universal healthcare. Our nation is in recession, and we need her leadership and skill to get us out of all these problems.
Obama is a snake oil saleman. He promised "change" in Illinois -- but failed to deliver anything. He did not inititate or support any fundamental changes that would improve the lives of Chicagoan. He benefited politically and financially from the corrupt system. Obama has done nothing as a senator except cutting deals to enrich himself as Rezko partner. Michelle tripled her salary at the hospital job immediately after he was elected to the senate. The Obamas are scam artists with the smooth talk.
Hillary has been scrutinized for century and they come out with nothing. I trust Hillary more than Obama.
Hillary 08!

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company