Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, Clinton Camps Spar Over Taxes, Rezko

Updated 10:25 p.m.
By Matthew Mosk
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign aides stepped up their effort to force Democrat Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns yesterday, to shed light on the sources of income that enabled her to loan $5 million of her own money to her presidential bid.

While Obama made public his tax return last year, Clinton's top advisers have maintained that they will only release the tax returns she filed jointly with husband Bill Clinton if she can secure her party's nomination.

"Why should Democratic voters have to wait until after the primary campaign is over to find out important information about Senator Clinton's finances that Senator Obama has already disclosed?" asked Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "For someone who claims to be fully vetted, hiding a campaign loan from voters until after Super Tuesday and refusing to release your tax returns until after the primary doesn't seem like the best way to prove that there are no surprises for the Republicans to find once they start digging."

Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson responded this evening to Burton's challenge in an e-mail to the Trail. "If Senator Obama is truly interested in transparency instead of just making false political attacks, he should reveal the full details of his relationship with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko," Wolfson said, referring to the indicted and jailed Chicago businessman who had been an early supporter and fundraiser of Obama's.

"Why should voters have to wait a moment longer to learn how many fundraisers Mr. Rezko threw for Senator Obama, how much money he raised for him, what assistance Senator Obama gave him, and how it was that they came to be involved in a controversial real estate deal together?" Wolfson said.

The response was reminiscent of the ugly debate exchange between Clinton and Obama after the Iowa Caucus. When Obama questioned Clinton's work on the board of Wal-Mart, the New York senator snapped back with a reference to Obama's work for Rezko, whom she described as a "slumlord."

Clinton aides also noted that she reportedly received $8 million from the publication of her autobiography in 2003.

Yesterday, Obama stopped short of calling on Clinton to release her tax return when asked the question by reporters traveling with him. "I'll just say that I've released my tax returns. That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down."

What is known about the source of the Clintons' income stems largely from the financial disclosure forms she filed as a presidential candidate and as a senator.

Clinton was able to draw on her joint bank account with her husband to make the loan. Last year, Hillary and Bill Clinton cashed out a blind trust with stock holdings valued at $5 million to $25 million, with the aim of avoiding conflicts of interest during the campaign.

More recently, the Wall Street Journal has reported that the former president will collect about $20 million in a deal to end his business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle. Burkle is also a top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 8, 2008; 10:25 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Brownback Stumps for McCain, but Does it Help?
Next: Romney and the Gramm-o-meter

Comments

Although, I was late in coming to support Barack Obama, as I rated experience over change, he got my vote on Super Tuesday. Universal Health Care and Global Warming are the domestic issues I care most about. From what I have read, Bill Clinton did not do much in regard to fighting global warming which is a crisis situation for our planet. I wonder if Hillary Clinton will do much more than he did. I have, also, read that Hillary is the second largest recipient of contributions from the pharmaceutical industries which along with the AMA has been fighting universal health care for 80 years, so that the U.S. is the only major industrialized country that does not provide universal healthcare for its citizens. I feel that Hillary has compromised her position by taking so much money from these corporations. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but I prefer Barack. Either of them, is better than any of the Republicans who have moved as far right as they can to appeal to the radical right leaning voters, with the sole exception of Ron Paul, the only Republican even worth considering. How are these people going to protect us from terrorists if they can't even stand up to Dick Cheney!!And how smart is it to align oneself with George W. Bush when he has a 30% approval rating in this country and is hated all over the world, including in countries that are supposedly our allies.
Vote for a Democrat regardless of who the nominee is!

Posted by: mooncat30 | February 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is getting pulled into a thicket of questions about their candidate's finances and fundraising history. This is not good territory for Senator Clinton to be in as she tries to win the remaining states. The problem: as long as she refuses to release the records, she gives the appearance of having something to hide. Keeping the records sealed--and being so adamant about it--will likely keep the issue in play. Unless she puts a stop to it, the media will dig into the Clintons' finances and revisit all the questions that bedevilled the first Clinton Administration.
She's boxed in on this issue and the more play it gets, the worse it will be for her. She's got to make this go away. Bringing up Rezko seems foolish--especially since someone recently published a photo of Bill and Hillary at a mid-90s fundraiser with this Mr. Rezko. She's really vulnerable on this issue, to Obama and to McCain. (Remember how much the Buddhist temple distracted Al Gore's campaign in 2000?) She's got to change the subject quickly.

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

JakeD

What "original" story? I'm telling you what I watched and heard verbatim on CNN two nights ago as to how this story devolved into the mess that is this board. I found the transcript of what Obama actually said (and what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears) and I posted it here because I assumed that many on this board would not take me at my word. The actual words that were spoken on this matter by Obama were only the innocuous ones above in my post followed by a reporter angling for negative comments on Hillary like you would not believe. I don't doubt that as the press turned this into an issue, that one of his campaign reps would say to reporters (asking the same leading questions in the same aggressive fashion) what Obama might not have been willing to say. Having said all of that, the only controversy in asking for tax returns would be if his campaign were not willing to do the same thing. Really, let's stop being disingenuous, campaign officials, when thrown a softball by the press will often take it. What is the CANDIDATE doing? Are they rolling around in the mud? No. He wasn't. I think the controversies with Hillary's bedside manner only arise when she or Bill actually say something negative, not when their campaign peeps jump on some press attack. Really, come now. This is just foolishness now.

Posted by: ifnotwinter | February 10, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

ifnotwinter:

Did you miss the following from the original story?

"Why should Democratic voters have to wait until after the primary campaign is over to find out important information about Senator Clinton's finances that Senator Obama has already disclosed?" asked Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "For someone who claims to be fully vetted, hiding a campaign loan from voters until after Super Tuesday and refusing to release your tax returns until after the primary doesn't seem like the best way to prove that there are no surprises for the Republicans to find once they start digging."

Posted by: JakeD | February 9, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

On the issues of MSNBC's bias against Hillary-- on Thursday night I saw an hour long program on MSNBC called "Headliners and Legends" that gave a dramatic and very sympathetic profile of Hillary. I am an Obama supporter, and even I felt a welling-up of admiration and sympathy for her after watching this program. The next program after that ended? And hour long Headliners and Legends on John McCain. This too was a puff piece. After seeing the program I was wiping away tears for McCain's bravery in the face of his POW bravery. After dinner and doing a few other things, I turned on MSNBC again, the Hillary "Headliners and Legends" was playing again. An hour ago, I turned on MSNBC, and guess what? The Hillary MSNBC piece was playing again. No similar special on Obama (or Huckabee for that matter) has played on MSNBC.

On the matter of Obama requesting tax returns from the Clintons, the other night I was watching CNN and and watched the anchor show a clip in which several tape recorders were shoved in Obama's face and a reporter asks whether in the light of the large donation Clinton has made to her own campaign and the fact that he has called for more transparency in government whether he is going to call for the Clintons to release their tax returns.

Obama said the following (also checkable on many newsites including the conservative Fox):

'Asked whether he would call on the Clintons to release their tax returns, Obama stopped short of saying they should.

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns. That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know where you get your income from. But I'll leave it up to you guys to chase it down," he told reporters on the flight to Omaha, Neb., for a rally.

"I've disclosed my income tax returns," he said. "I think we set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure that has been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics."

There was no immediate comment from Clinton's campaign.'

After the news clip ended the CNN anchor did what can only be characterized as badger Susan Rice, Obama's Campaign representative on the program (and former Clinton assistant secretary of state) to say a negative comment about the Clinton's failure to release their taxes. She didn't bite either. I took careful note of this because I knew it would be a headline like this in a day or two. It was goading and inaccurate.

Posted by: ifnotwinter | February 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

As an "issues voter" who's issue is health care, I'm deeply saddened by the results I see.

If Obama is elected we can kiss any chance of universal health care goodbye.

The people who will suffer the most are low-income Americans, especially African-Americans and Latinos who will go without health insurance to save money, then go to the emergency room, get poor care and pay a fortune just like they do now.

I suppose I shouldn't care.
I'm white and middle class.
I've got the perfect demographics for Obama.

I became a Democratic because I cared about the less-fortunate.

What I see happening is breaking my heart.

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Clinton made her personal finances an issue by crying about the fact she had to loan her campaign $5 Million as a way of soliciting more donations. As far as shady real estate deals are concerned, I still wonder about whitewater and why Bill Clinton had to pardon their former whitewater partner Susan McDougal.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

SpeedofChange said: "Look at this Republican research, this is just the beginning: www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Democrats can not say these things due to PC, but Republicans will detroy his candidacy in minutes"

Whether or not this "research" is accurate is immaterial. The right wing hate machine will push it incessantly and will successfully drive up Barack's negatives to match Hillary's.

The Obama supporters will need to brace themselves against the onslaught.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate, much of it for public works projects funded in conjunction with fellow Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and others in the New York congressional delegation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-earmarks10dec10,1,6720618.story

Posted by: jjknoles | February 9, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

First, a SUSA poll shows Barack Obama up a significant 59% to 39%. He is leading 87% to 12% among blacks -- which make 29% of the electorate -- and manages to tie Clinton among whites, at 49%.

"He said that most of his support comes from white men. Hispanics and white women, or Asian's are not his target or issue at this time."
__________________________________________________________________________________
Vote Hillary in primary and whatever in Fall to show this joker up.
Allot of women are to show Kennedy, etc. to leave Women alone and they can do the work. Even Ann Coulter- YIKES!
Women are being marginalized by the all male club for someone who has done no work in Congress and wants "entitlement presidency."

(Neither are Gays for this sudo ultra liberal phony)
Rezko trial come up in Il. 3/3/08 and he'll be in court...w/ the whole dirty Il. political group Gov. Blog., Emil Jones( il senate pres,) Stroger, that got him in the watch the smoke turn to fire,
Hillary's beyond all that.

Posted by: crrobin | February 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

connectdots: Regarding Rezko/Obama 17 year friendship/association.

You said:

"It isn't enough to pass his patron (Rezko) off, as Obama did at a debate, as someone for whom he did "a few hours" of legal work.

Their association has persisted for years and, now that Rezko will be in the headlines facing federal corruption charges . . ."

* * * * * * *
Here are some facts I have gleaned out of the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 27th issue, not the 24th issue, by John Kass, a Tribune investigative reporter. This is information from the newspapers and interview with Kass on Fox. These are not my interpretations, they are statements made in the news reporting. There are more than 100 articles in Chicago newspapers.

I didn't say this stuff, I am just the messenger. So, don't blame the messenger, but use your analytical reasoning to help you decide who to vote for:
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Kass said:

"Rezko is Obama's guy.
"The photo with the Clinton's and Rezko are 'inconsequential.' "
"The Rezko/Obama relationship is "significant."
"Rezko is Obama's guy."
"Rezko is an Arab, from Syria."
"Rezko receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east."
"Rezko is Obama's political God-father."

"Obama wrote letters on his Illinois State SEnate letterhead on behalf of Rezko which netted Rezko fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) in taxpayer monies paid to Rezko."

"Obama attended business meetings with Rezko to influence potential investors."

"REzko held fundraisers in Rezko's mansion which netted Obama more than $200,000 in campaign contributions."

"When Michelle and Barack Obama couldn't afford a 1.9 million dollar mansion that they wanted, they got $300,000 (at least) knocked off the purchase price of the home, the same day Rezko's wife purchased an inaccessible vacant lot next to the Obama mansion, for $625,000.

Later, Obama purchased that inaccessible adjacent vacant lot from Rezko AFTER Rezko was indicted on "influence peddling and other charges."

"A few days ago, the FBI arrested Rezko and confined him awaiting trial on Feb. 25th. There was something written that the FBI was worried about Rezko moving a lot of money around."
* * * * * * * * *

I say, this information proves at the very least that Obama is a liar.

As was said, he sluffed off Hillary's question she posed to him at that debate - by saying, instantly, "na na na, I only did about five hours worth of work for him.

It is apparent now, that his staff should have handed him a piece of paper two minutes before the debate, reminding him of his close association with Rezko that lasted at least 17 years, even from the time he was at Harvard Law School.

Michelle Obama is just as implicated - she had to be there the day the real estate deal for their mansion was struck.

* * * * *
This is why a vote for Obama now in the primaries and caucuses is ultimately a vote for McCain in the fall.

McCain is ruthless - he will not let sleeping dogs lie - he will bring up every minute detail and Obama's frenzied train will never make it to the White House.

McCain says we will be in Iraq for 100 years, and will draft our precious high school graduates and young college students into his McCain army.

We must be sure McCain doesn't become our next "war president," which is his intention.
I do not want my grand daughter drafted into a McCain war. Obama can't win with his negatives in his past.

At the very least, Hillary will not draft our young people, and she will bring our troops home, get universal health care passed, and work very hard to make our economy healthy again.

That is a very good change from the past 7 years. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 9, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

This is typical of Obama's tactics:

1. White in Iowa
2. Black in SC
3. Regan hugger in Nevada villages
4. Union hugger in Las Vegas
5. Latino hugger in California
6. Republican hugger in NY suburb

I actually like this instinct of winning at any cost.

But it shows a corrup person at heart.

Taking money from Rezko to buy his house does not bother him, then he acts he does not know the guy.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

kadavul, have you lost your mind?

To suggest that the Obama campaign is attracting white supremacists is beyond laughable. He mentioned the name of Reagan in the context that he enacted the largest change in this country's trajectory in recent history.

Posted by: dixielandpunker | February 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Marie4:

Your information on Razko and Obama are incorrect.

Razko helped Obama with his house purchase. Obama himself said there was an appearance corruption, but he was sorry for it: ://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

Also, Obama's money scheme is very simple, he has devised a method where "lobbist" money coming to his campaign as "personal" money to buy pass any scrutiny of his "vote for money" scheme. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

In addition to his corrupt ways like most politician, he simply can not win the election.

Look at this Republican research, this is just the beginning: www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Democrats can not say these things due to PC, but Republicans will detroy his candidacy in minutes

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

To aravir33:
Just stop posting your lies in the web all over. A detailed analysis on the senate record says otherwise. I urge users to do research on their own on http://thomas.loc.gov/ on 107-110th congress. Please do not restrict your research to one congress only. She has been in the Senate before 110th.

This is the kind of lies Obama supporters do all over, and blame Hillary.

Mention of Reagan is to attract white supremacists. Admit that. That is the kind of campaign Obama team runs. Obama team used Republicans attack on Hillary in verbatim.

Please stop echoing the right wing media's messages here, as someone quoting WSJ many times.

Also take a look at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

We need the White House with all our principles in tact, not after loosing all of them, in order to "reach out". That is sell out!

Posted by: kadavul | February 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: aravir33 | February 8, 2008 08:10 PM

Everyone read this persons comment...even you leslieanneconover. Maybe you will learn something.

Posted by: IllinoisDemo | February 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Here goes Obama supporters with race baiting, hate spewing, sex baiting. They have dual personality like their flip flopping candidate:

1. We are for unity, but will not vote for another democrat

2. Clinton voter are old and illiterate, we are young and resentful of old and illiterate. But we will unite the country :-)

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I wish that everytime the media reported a Hillary Rezco jab they would report(1) that his former firm, which did actually represent Rezco said Obama did not, that Obama was a low-level associate with barely any duties to him; (2) that Obama doesn't take PAC money and has DONATED all of Rezco contributions to charity; and (3) HILLARY'S UNEXPLAINED PHOTO-OP with Rezco.

I mean really, the Chicago Sun Times did an investigation and this "scandal" is nothing. Sure the republicans might use it, but how much more ammo will they have from the Clintons' refusal to release documents from their library; to show the Clinton's money from suspicious figures in the Middle East, and suspicious deals in China?

Oh and let's not forget that on principle Bill Clinton said it "violated the spirit of campaign finance reform" to dump millions of your personal money into your presidential campaign, granted that was in December before HRC's campaign went "broke."

I believe that she should have been upfront, for honesty's sake, about the loan before SuperTuesday, even as I recognize it might have cost her some votes, let's be real, it would not have cost her the election. I also don't want to wait until after she has the nom to know where her money comes from or what papers are in that library. No mystery candidates!

Obama '08

Posted by: Marie4 | February 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Found the article...

Clinton won both Michigan and Florida handily. She won Michigan in part because Obama and other Democrats took their names off the ballot in solidarity with the DNC and as part of a pledge to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states not to participate in unsanctioned contests.
---

In light of this reality, I like the caucus idea. I also know that a number of other college students, like myself, did not try to return home to vote, or get an absentee ballot, because the vote DIDN'T COUNT. Many of us are Obama supporters. To award delegates based on the returns given would be an insult to our political process.

Posted by: dixielandpunker | February 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

dixielandpunker:

Edwards and Obama did not petition to have their names on the Michigan ballot.

Instead, Obama and the media reminded the voters over and over they could vote "uncommitted" which would show that Hillary was not the winner in Michigan.

That effort on the part of the media and Obama failed. "Uncommitted" received far less votes than Hillary. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

In the article it says: (During a recent debate):

When Obama questioned Clinton's work on the board of Wal-Mart, the New York senator snapped back with a reference to Obama's work for Rezko, whom she described as a "slumlord."
* * * * *
Obama didn't mention at that debate that Michelle Obama had worked for a firm affiliated with Wal-Mart also. You do know that the Wal-Mart Board and the Wal-Mart Company are two separate entities.

Michelle Obama was earning $57,000 a year from a company affiliated with Wal-Mart until Obama mentioned Clinton's association and Michelle hurriedly quit her $57,000 a year post.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama has no chance of winning white house:

They need to read "start" of the Republican attack research:

www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Democrats can not attack Obama for his past history and incompetency due to PC.

Republicans have no PC obligation.

Dukakis had 17% lead over old Bush before the Republican attack. Obama showing on average 2% lead over McCain and it does not cater for Bradley effect. Black candidates receive 5-10% less vote than what shows on the poll

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I think the NY Times article on Obama reminds people Obama did do drugs. If they tried to put a positive spin on it...they probably hurt him more than they'd help him.

What am I talking about...at this stage the media will let Obama get away with anything. If he does anything that is questionable, it's the people that question it that are to blame...not his actions.

Posted by: badger3 | February 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

rookthomashine, I think I read somewhere that Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan?

Can anyone else corroborate this story?

Posted by: dixielandpunker | February 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Quit looking like such a dick, and drop out already. We are done with you! The middle can have you...the Mighty East and West have spoken!!!!!!!

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 07:33 PM

Leslie...are you a boy or girl can't tell by the name. Anyway your Mom should have washed your potty mouth out with soap.

Posted by: IllinoisDemo | February 9, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, svreader, there you are again with the drugs.

I think it takes a body full of your favorite drugs to not realize that Obama can win any blue state that Clinton has won so far AND a possible number of red states that won't touch her "with a 49 and a half foot pole," to quote the good doctor.

Obama will win the nomination and the White House.

Posted by: dixielandpunker | February 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Isn't the Wall Street Journal owned by Murdoch? Isn't becoming just another NY Post?

Posted by: badger3 | February 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is the only person who understand the dynamics of the economy and can not only solve the financial crisis we face now but will bring us a new green revolution that will completely change the way of life, just like what internet revolution did in the 90s.The voters who have no memory of the 90s have been the major supporters for Obama, the person who combines the 19th century political tactics and the 21th century technology to create the hype for himself. He would not even be known by anyone if there were no Bill Clinton.

Posted by: sgr_astar | February 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I love how Clinton supporters scream about how poor Florida and Michigan voters are being disenfranchised by the DNC- until you suggest that Michigan and Florida should now hold legitimate, sanctioned caucuses- perhaps in June, if they can get their act together by then. All of a sudden there's a vast silence.

The Clinton campaign is terrified of a real, legitimate vote in these states- because they're perfectly aware that they might lose to Obama.

Posted by: ProgRook | February 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

What is it the Clintons are hiding?
We know some of their deals and CORRUPTIONS
Clinton proudly used his clout to seal the sort of deal that would otherwise be impossible between an unknown uranium mining entrepreneur and the communist dictator of a former Soviet Republic (Kazakhstan), who happens to own one-fifth of the world's uranium reserves.

"With the help of his good buddy Clinton, Vancouver mining mogul Frank Giustra secured tens of millions of dollars worth of uranium to fuel nuclear reactors worldwide. The thank you note included a $31.3 million donation to the William J. Clinton Foundation as well as a future pledge of $100 million."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/clintons-multi-million-dollar-communist-uranium-deal

2. Clinton to Return All Hsu-Tainted Money

"Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign announced tonight that it would return approximately $850,000 to about 260 donors who had been recruited or tapped by Norman Hsu, the disgraced Clinton campaign fundraiser who recently fled arrest and is now under investigation for his fundraising practices."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/clinton-to-return-all-hsu-tainted-money/

There are probably many similar dealings and corruption we don't know.

Posted by: dan8 | February 9, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Quote by svreader: "There was an article in the NYT that tried to be favorable, but fell flat on its face because the pitch was "vote for Obama, he did slightly less drugs than some of his friends"
Unquote.

They probably can't remember what he did or did not do---too much brain damage from ILLEGAL drug use.

Posted by: jbh13 | February 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporter are not on drug. They are suffering form OMAMAMANIA- no fact, no logic, no rational throught.

They need to read "start" of the Republican attack research:

www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Democrats can not attack Obama for his past history and incompetency due to PC.

Republicans have no PC obligation.

Dukakis had 17% lead over old Bush before the Republican attack. Obama showing on average 2% lead over McCain and it does not cater for Bradley effect. Black candidates receive 5-10% less vote than what shows on the poll

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

First to the mathmatically challenged writer who claimed that Clinton won by a narrow margin in Massachusetts and California--since when are double digit margins narrow? The press may secretly want to elect McCain. Why else would they constantly shove Obama down our throats? Hillary could whip the republican's butt. I agree with everyone that the republicans would rip Obama to shreds!!! The republicans are just a bit too forthcoming about wanting to run against Hillary. They see Obama as fresh meat that they can throw into the fire and watch a slow and steady burn.

Posted by: Helen6 | February 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

In my humble view, comment by kaveh_vejdani | February 8, 2008 07:39 PM and next by Petronicus are quite accurate and rational.

Posted by: pggowland | February 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Based on their postings. Its would appear that Obama's supporters are still taking drugs...

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Scram, Billy Willy, or I'll loan myself another 5 mil! Sandy, hawk that furniture! Chelsea, raid Goldman's petty cash! Carville, show your Satan puss & frighten 'em into being mugged by Begala! Reich & Shalala (Insh'allah, mother!), pick those pockets! Hey, you, m_____f___ing incest hillbilly! Hand over those lap-dance simoleons! Hsu, baby, get big bucks for those butts in the joint!"

Posted by: sawargos | February 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

jjknoles said: "PhilTR, I understand your longing for the nostalgic of the good Clinton years. An your are passionate about your decision for Presidential support."

Man-o-man, when you miss the point, you don't mess around. You will prove most helpful to Barack. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm frankly surprised Hillary isn't going after Obama's drug history more.

There was an article in the NYT that tried to be favorable, but fell flat on its face because the pitch was "vote for Obama, he did slightly less drugs than some of his friends"

I just don't see the drug issue going away.

It knocks St. Obama off his holy perch.

"Who would you rather do lines with?" is not very convincing.


Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me that both the Obama and Clinton camps are going on fishing expeditions. Give it a rest, you two.

Posted by: Ryan7 | February 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

PhilTR, I understand your longing for the nostalgic of the good Clinton years. An your are passionate about your decision for Presidential support. A few years back I can remember having the argument with my wife about our choices and support for the last two elections. An voting merely on the facts of the candidates and the capabilities that they poses and the emotions of the moment. She was looking for those Regan and first Bush years, which our parents had talked about the good old years. But the facts remained the same in a effort to revert back to the same brand with a different flavor, did not deliver the results as expected. Which will hold the same for this time around, I admire who and what the Clintons have done for this country. Some good, some bad, but the fact remains the same, in order to move forward, you have to move forward without looking backwards. There is no amount of ret erect that can change the facts of history.

Posted by: jjknoles | February 9, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

karla.ely77said "If you are interested in reading DOCUMENTED FACTS regarding not only where the Clinton's money comes from (in addition to many other questionable activities) get Amanda B. Carpenter's "The vast right-wing conspiracy's dossier on Hillary Clinton"....copyright 2006"

erummm...that's gotta be fair and balanced. heheh.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

If you are interested in reading DOCUMENTED FACTS regarding not only where the Clinton's money comes from (in addition to many other questionable activities) get Amanda B. Carpenter's "The vast right-wing conspiracy's dossier on Hillary Clinton"....copyright 2006 - available from Amazon.com and many other booksellers....

For the FACTS on Obama/Rezko reference an Jan. 24, 2008 article in the Chicago Sun Times... http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

The Clintons are experts when it comes to putting spin on topics that don't agree with them and/or show them in a bad light. I am interested in the FACTS, as that is what truly matters...read and make your own decisons!

Posted by: karla.ely77 | February 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I hate to break the hearts of all of you Clinton Nites out there. But Hillary is only looking out for herself. Listen Bill made all kinds of promises to middle American, that he sold out on. An Hillary is doing the same, He just intervened to help a millionaire obtain mining rights in Russia, now how can you say you are for the american people. A violating the policies and the interest of the American people. Listen, the Clintons have made a lot of promises to a lot of people in order for her to get into office. Some of those promises just may place the physical and financial security of this country at risk. Stop listening to the spend and do a little research on your own. The reason they are questioning that 5 million is because it may have come from other international interest that have already been promised by the clintons. If you haven't already - please take a look at "Hillary the Movie." I served in the Military under the clintons and what we got was a military unable to function, under funded and the Don't ask don't tell policy. I saw some of my fellow soldiers in arms, living on well fare while serving in the military. I know a lot people think the 80's were great under the clintons and they are looking for those lower gas prices and a balanced economy. Well this is a different decade and the challenges are a lot different than before. It is time for a new direction, a new face and I only see one or two people that is going to be able to help us turn the page and get back on track as a great nation. I can see myself supporting McCain or Obama for President. Because they offer us a true opportunity for change and to take a new direction in this world and this century.

Posted by: jjknoles | February 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton's top advisers have maintained that they will only release the tax returns she filed jointly with husband Bill Clinton if she can secure her party's nomination."

First question: Did she file separately in some years, perhaps when Bill had dealings with foreign nationals? Which means we'll never know about those?

Second question: Why does she think Democrats should support her in the primary based on insufficient information?

Posted by: TomJx | February 9, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

You see, Barack's resume is, to be generous, a bit light. He has little to draw upon. This is reflected in his stump speeches (the Brother sings rather than dances). Hillary's is a bit heftier, she can dance.

David Bossie's group, Citizen United will bring out their hate film only after Barack is given the party nod. His negatives will be driven up to where Hillary's are, which was a testament to their effectiveness. The Obama supporters help the Republican hate machine by mindlessly parroting the Republican talking points regarding Hillary's negatives.

Barack will face a three prong attack from McCain, fear, war and hate. Tear'ist uder every bush, war for 100 years and hatred of certain lifestyles and their values. McCain will wrap himself in the flag of patriotism and self righteousness. He will figuratively contrast Barack's 'short-pants' with his 'long-pants' asking how can you possibly think of putting someone who still wears short-pants into such a high position.

This three pronged attack coupled with the contrasts in gravitas and the effects of the Republican hate machine is what Barack will have to deal with. So will his supporters and the fawning Press who have so far muleheadedly refused to properly vet Barack.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse


Why does the press continue to publish anything out of the Clinton machine without challenging it. There are no secrets between Obama and Rezko. She knows it. They have been digging digging digging and have nothing to show for it. The press lets her get away with that? Ask what exactly she is implying. Ask if she has ever seen the slightest bit of evidence that he had done anything improper or illegal.

Posted by: markbirdsall | February 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Just as Richard Nixon saved his vice-presidential candidacy in 1952 from news of a secret political slush fund, Barack Obama should do a Checkers speech to remove Antoin Rezko as an obstacle to his campaign's momentum.

Obama's style precludes maudlin Nixon props like his wife's cloth coat and the family dog, but he would be well-advised to prepare an explanation to unload the Rezko albatross.

It isn't enough to pass his patron off, as Obama did at a debate, as someone for whom he did "a few hours" of legal work. Their association has persisted for years and, now that Rezko will be in the headlines facing federal corruption charges, Obama should get out ahead of the issue with his own mea culpa, particularly about the fixer's role in buying the Obamas' home.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/search?q=obama+checkers

Posted by: connectdots | February 9, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

"The Clintons are very shady people and in some cases criminal"

Name one.

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

I've often thought if GW Bush were photographed eating puppies, the famous 27% who blindly support him would find a way to minimize and excuse the revelation. Sen Obama's supporters give me that same feeling.

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

The Clintons have more trash and scandal in there back yard then a city land fill.

Hillary is freaked out because there is a pending court date coming up in a couple weeks , and she was hoping to have the nomination locked up before that stuff is all over the front page.

Now we are learning that 2 boxes of New Mexico voting ballots ( spent the night ) at a persons house that endorsed Clinton.

The Clintons are very shady people and in some cases criminal.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

parkerfl said: I frightened as to the extent of nastiness that is possible in a drawn-out Dem race. These two could destroy each other by summer.

Well steel yourself. The Obamanauts have been living the dream. The nightmare begins. The Republican hate machine is working furiously to define their dream.

Mr Obama is real good at telling folks how good his campaign is.

The Brother can sing but, can he dance?

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/anti-obama-film-on-the-way/

" A conservative group -- Citizens United (headed up by David Bossie) -- that has produced a film now in distribution attacking Hillary Clinton called "Hillary, the Movie," has its sights set on a new target: Barack Obama.

The group has budgeted about $1 million to produce a documentary film about Mr. Obama that is set to be distributed this summer. At the moment, Citizens United has its researchers poring over Mr. Obama's records as a community organizer, state legislator and United States senator in the same way that it scoured Mrs. Clinton's record with a highly critical eye and a sharply conservative point of view. "

OK Obamanauts, it starts. Get ready. Mr Obama will now be defined by the Republican hate machine.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I frightened as to the extent of nastiness that is possible in a drawn-out Dem race. These two could destroy each other by summer.

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

Posted by: parkerfl | February 9, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

The Press muleheadedly refuses to properly vet Barack. After all white candidates throughout history have undergone this rite of passage. Barack is good at telling folks how good his campain is.

The Brother can sure sing but, can he dance? Bush showed he could out-danced Gore and Kerry. Bill out-danced Bush the elder and Dole. And what a dance. A sight to behold for sure. Even Hillary has shown she can dance too. Each withstood everything the Press could uncover.

Is it a matter of respect? Requiring Barack to undergo the vetting process would mean that he is equal to his peers. Treating him with kid gloves to appease the more thin-skinned seems to show two things. The Press is intimidated by said thin-skinned and the possible presence of deep racial animus on the part of the Press. The Press may not want to face a possible back-lash and it's easier to avoid the confrontation that vetting would bring and still maintain a feeling of superiority.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 9, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

According to sources (MSNBC's Headliners and Legends) when Hillary profited from her best selling book "It Takes A Village", she donated $700,000.00 to a charity for under previlige children and more were donated from her second best selling book as well. And according to sources, Barack Obama received $8 Million from the publisher of his book "Audacity of Hope" (not sure about the title) and nobody knows where it is because according to what I've known, he only declared a total asset before filing his candidacy of $1.9 Million. Where is the money Barack? At least the Clintons have reason to earn millions because Bill Clinton's speeches and advisory skills on economics and governance to foreign countries are priceless. Sorry Barack your not Bill and your not Jack Kennedy either. So please stop the nonsense of asking where did she get the $5 million she loaned to her campaign. First you should clear up the REZKO controversy, this is important because you are trapping a lot of very diehard Democrats who support you. I also heard from a liberal radio talk show that one of your adviser is a Muslim. I am not against the Muslims I respect them and their belief in their God but I will not respect you and probably most of the Americans if you claim you are a Christian and having a Muslim as one of your advisers. Clear this up because the Republicans has Karl Rove. He is a very efficient digger of dirts. I am just weary that this "Obama Movement" so they say might be the next John Kerry campaign if ever you will be the Democratic nominee, "God forbid". Don't forget Obamans, the losers are all on your side, Kennedy, Kerry and Daschle. Remember these? Truth and (not or) Consequence? JINKS maybe?

Posted by: vidcre | February 9, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Why are the Obama fans and MSNBC so fascinated with Obama's win in IDAHO, NORTH DAKOTA, UTAH, ALASKA and COLORADO. Obamanites, these states will never vote for a Democrat that's why Hillary did not waste her time in Boise. His adviser Tom Daschle lose in North Dakota in 2004. Did you know that about 16,000 came to see him in Boise State and that almost same number came to caucus for him. With that size of a win, don't expect a Democrat to win in Idaho. With Hillary ARKANSAS is a sure state for the Democrats. ALABAMA and GEORGIA will never vote for a Democrat in the general election. NEW MEXICO and ARIZONA will sure be a democrat because of the Latinos and Asians. They love the Clintons and nobody can change that. It pays to be a good president and a smart, intelligent and caring first lady. What's so magnificient about those wins? These is a losing strategy for the Obama people. Hillary won in big states CA, NY, NJ, MA, MI, FL and don't forget NEVADA. She won TENESSEE and OKLAHOMA. These states hold primaries not caucauses. So please Obamanites, stop ridiculing and undermining Hillary's appeal. Did you see what happened in New Hampshire? She won because she was banged up by the media after losing in Iowa and her debate performance was so convincing. Where are the Kennedys, I hope Barack will bring Oprah and John Kerry and Tom Daschle in his campaigns. You keep on trumpeting the news that thousands and thousands came to attend his campaign. The media did not even feature Hillary's rally in New Hampshire where thousands attended too, except CSPAN. They paid more emphasis on Obama's rally. The result, he loses. The four women in Califonia was a big news out in UCLA gymnasium, Oprah, Maria Shriver and Caroline Kennedy must be hiding now. They are running away from media interview after that debacle. What a win for Hillary. The liberal women against a decent first lady who cares more about the people and not her reputation lose in that big showdown. What a shame! Second to none, sorry Massachusets was much bigger. I forgot. Don't say she's not electable, the latest (released on 02/06/08) GALLUP POLL has Hillary at 59% while Obama has 39%. With a match up against McCain the latest poll has Hillary beating him. So what's the deal. Though I don't trust the polls anymore, at least that's what the Obamanites are counting on. When Zogby said Obama is leading Hillary by 15% in California, and that the momemtum is unsurmountable, Barack was all smile and cool. The day after he lose big, he was all frown and cold as ice. See what I mean by electability?

Posted by: vidcre | February 9, 2008 7:23 AM | Report abuse

leslieanneconover (09:04 PM) seems a very intelligent supporter of Clinton. I think Obama should make way for someone like that to run the country.

Posted by: rupertornelius | February 9, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

I realize the Clinton campaign has gall, but they bring up Rezko? Why doesn't the Obama campaign respond with an alphabetical list of all the sleazy or convicted donors to Clintons' campaigns? Not to mention the Price of a Pardon in the Clinton administration.

It's totally legitimate to ask where the $5million came from--maybe the Clintons have started timeshares on the Lincoln bedroom already.

Posted by: Seytom1 | February 9, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Interviewer tries to railroad the wrong Obama supporter

Run time: 05:52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM


"It's not just enough to change the players. We've gotta change the game."

~ Barack Obama

Posted by: Rubiconski | February 9, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Don't all you Obama supporters realize that Obama is not experienced enough to authorize the invasion of Iraq?...

Posted by: cjroses | February 9, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

We can make history if we go out and vote this coming Tuesday February 12, especially people under the age of 30. Let's make history. We can make 2008 a year to be remembered for having the largest young voters turn out.
Yes we can!

Posted by: honeybee20191 | February 9, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Can't you just see Obama pouting again? Shes winning and I'm losing, WHAWHAWHAWHA

Oh well, Obama time to grow up and stop playing the victim. So what you submitted your taxes first. It is customary that a candidates taxes get submitted after they get nominated.

There he goes again changing like the wind.
ABM will never get my vote. Clinton is not my first choice either but she is better then ABM. Great as* cw.

Posted by: cwbarerearview | February 9, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

To all Hillary cry baby supporters! you need our support if Hillary is the nominee and we don't need yours if Obama is the nominee. We can win with the support of independents and republicans. Hillary won Newyork, California, Newjersey, Mass..Comeon even an dog with (D) next to it can win these state in general election. These are very BBBBBLLLLLUUUUEEEE state.

Posted by: premail | February 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Rezko again?!? Reruns, BORING.

Are they ever going to come up with anything else? I'd like full disclosure of Bill's relationship with Ron Burkle. I'd like to know more about Whitewater and Norman Hsu

Posted by: scharb | February 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

If you are a Democrat and you want to beat John McCain, the rational evidence is pretty straight forward:
--Obama consistently polls better against McCain as noted in this article.
--Obama is more effective at fund raising.
--Obama generates more enthusiasm.
--Obama puts many states into play that Clinton will not. Obama would win every state that Clinton would win, but the opposite is not true.
--Clinton fatigue is likely to grow over time
--Clinton will motivate Republicans to vote against her. She has much higher overall negatives than Obama.

Given all of this, I don't see how you can make a case that Clinton is more "electable" than Obama.

On top of this, if people make the case of Rezko, what about the many sleazy Clinton contributors (see the The New Republic story -- With Friends Like These...), and what about Bill Clinton's questionable dealings in Khazkhstan?

Posted by: hermanSF | February 8, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Um... so, why is it DIRTY to suggest an opponent disclose tax returns?

Why is it DIRTY to suggest Hillary reveal documents pertaining to her time as First Lady, considering she counts this in her "35 years" of experience?

Isn't it interesting that when Obama simply says "reveal your tax returns" her campaign responds with infantile retorts about Rezko... an issue that has been dealt with long ago.

The sense of entitlement these Clinton's have is amazing. I actually used to respect them after Bill's presidency... but they have burnt up every bit of credit they had.

Obama will dominate both the delegates and money for the rest of February.

Hillary will be on the ropes for Texas.

No doubt she will cry again, the day before the Primary, in an attempt to drive women to the polls...

Something tells me that it won't work this time.

Posted by: Boutan | February 8, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I would also like to say that substantively Hillary and Obama are very similar in terms of the issues. The key difference is this. Obama inspires people and he has the ability to bring people together around a common purpose. His legislative record supports this claim. He has helped to pass significant bi-partisan legislation while in office.

Hillary, while very bright, articulate, and knowledgeable is a very divisive figure in politics and she has the scars to prove it.

Obama has the ability through his rhetoric, intelligence and character to UNITE the country. I don't think this is true of Clinton. She simply has way too much political baggage. How can she possibly expect to change washington when she is in bed with lobbyists? The answer is she can't.

What Obama lacks in experience, he more then makes up for in judgement. ie. IRAQ WAR. All of Hillary's so called experience resulted in the WRONG choice. A decision that will cost America and perhaps the world for years to come.

OBAMA in '08.

Posted by: sophia.e.little | February 8, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

jerryh, why don't you try doing some research instead of appearing ignorant:

Obama got his million dollar house by working for it. He received $2 million dollars for his latest book deal and purchased his home for $1.6M. He wanted to extend his backyard so he purchased an additional piece of land from TR a guy he knew for over 20 years and paid above fair market value for the land.

This information has been substantiated. I don't get why Hillary is hiding her tax return if indeed she has nothing to hide. AND you should also note that the press is the one that asked him about it and he responded in kind. So if you want to blame someone for digging up dirt blame the media.

Old fashion dirty politics are part of the Clinton makeup. How about the email that was circulated by her camp stating that Obama is really a closet muslim. Or that he had ambitions about becoming president when he was in primary school even going so far as to quoting from an essay he wrote when he was in grade 3. Give me a break, and that's just the beginning. I won't even mention how the Clintons played the race card in SC and have deliberately misquote Obama on numerous occasions. If you're looking for dirty politics, look no futher then the Clintons. Oddly enough I used to have a lot of respect for Hillary and Bill as well until I've witnessed their dirty underhanded political attack machine that will say and do anything to get elected!

Posted by: sophia.e.little | February 8, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have dealings with businessmen who help them with transfering money to the Caymen islands, thus hiding it away from IRS. Therefore even if they disclose their tax returns it is not going to show how much they really make every year.

One thing that is bothersome is that if Hillary gets elected, Bill can still make deals with businesses that get favors from the government, but Bill will get a check for making a speech. How convenient is that. Bill has been claiming that he makes money by giving speeches. But the truth is, the money is paid for other services or favors by him, but get billed as for speeches. Bill went to Kazakstan to help a Canadian businessmen get a deal done for Uranium mining. But Bills revenue from that deal would have been transfered to Caymen islands and would be termed for speeches delivered.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | February 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

jerryh, Obama was simply stating a fact -- that he does better against McCain than Clinton does, usually by around six points. That's a heck of a difference, and, if Clinton is allowed to make her bizarre claim to being "fully vetted", then it's perfectly legitimate that Obama can reference his significant support among Republicans and independents.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Where are all of the free thinkers in America? Forget party affiliation. Prioritize for yourself what is important for our country and vote for the candidate who best represents that be they white, black, man, woman, republican, democrat, independent. I appreciate that Obama does want to work with the Republicans and find common ground. That's the only way we are going to make anything important happen in this country. I am a registered Democrat. I don't vote Democrat every time and find it difficult to believe that many Americans views are aligned with their political party's views on every issue. Be your own person. Vote for who you believe can help make this country great.

Posted by: thegjer | February 8, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Its amazing to me that the Clinton supporters are declaring themselves the agents of change when their candidate is the leading practitioner of divisive partisan politics, which has dominated for the last 20 years. The Clinton political machine (old system) is declaring that it is Hillary's turn but at the same time saying she will change the system.

Hillary needs to get out of the way, and make room for an inspirational voice which will change if not the US government at least the way voters feel about themselves. I am a Republican and would seriously consider voting Obama, although McCain has been a hero of mine for quite some time.

And a special note to Florida...
WTF, why can't you figure out how to vote. First you give the election to Bush in 2000 and now you have figured out a way to possibly destroy the Democratic party itself. Maybe you should lose the right to vote altogether until you get your act together.

Posted by: offline.eric | February 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I smell old fashioned dirty politics from Obama's side all under the disguise of change, hope. What about come clean with his deal that got his million dollar house? Another old trick he did was saying he will get Clinton's votes but Clinton won't get his votes. How arrogant and what an attempt to win vote using tactics of fear rather than competing on ground of best qualification for the presidency. McCain has much better integrity and a verteran hero. If Hillary lost, I will vote McCain.

Posted by: jerryh1 | February 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and NARROW??????????? NARROW MARGINS?????????

You call Ms. Clinton winning by 398,238 votes in Caliofrnia narrow???????

And winning by 192,704 votes in Mass narrow??????????????

The difference in votes between Clinton (winner) and Obama (LOSER), in just those 2 states, are more votes than Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Delaware, and Alaska's total casted votes in all...

Obama's "wins" are pathetic...quit making excuses for him....Obama has lost!

SEAT FLORIDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALLOW DEMOCRACY TO PREVAIL!!!!!!!!!!!

WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO: LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE AMERICAN WAY!!!!!!!!!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, DNC!!!!!!!

DNC = SAD & PATHETIC

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Shaman come in many shapes, colors and sizes. Some carry tents around the country and hold revivals. They all have certain things in common: They are smooth talkers and extremely charismatic. Mr. Obama carries his revival through the land and has won over many converts. But like most of the others, he is simply playing the game of being above the fray. He is as dirty as Ms. Clinton when it comes to mudslinging.

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

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

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

kaveh_vejdani | February 8, 2008 08:07 PM


Only LOSERS make excuses...LOSER!

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it!
Why is it "dirty" to ask for her tax returns?

Posted by: aravir33 | February 8, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

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

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

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

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

There you have it-the facts straight from the Senate Record.

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

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

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

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

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

Posted by: aravir33 | February 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention that having John McCain as the likely candidate has disenfranchised the religious right. Many are likely sit out the election if it is a McCain/Obama race. Hillary could, however, energize the right given their deep dislike for her.

Remember this isn't a football game (although some of the rediculous banter some of you have written makes it seem like one).

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

Hey Leslieanne, shame on you. FYI:

1. Florida doesn't count.
2. New York: Her home state, no surprise.
3. Massachussettes: Narrow margin, and only 17 more delegates.
4. California: Again narrow margin, but more delegates because of the higher total number of delegates.

Now the good news is that Obama will have the definitive lead by the end of this month. Granted, Hillary is doing a good job for stealing the nomination. But we won't let her hijack this nation again. If she steals the nomination, we will vote Republican, just to make her understand that you she is disqualified for presidency when she fights a nation's inspirational leader and gets on the way of people's hope.

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

Hey Leslieanne, shame on you. FYI:

1. Florida doesn't count.
2. New York: Her home state, no surprise.
3. Massachussettes: Narrow margin, and only 17 more delegates.
4. California: Again narrow margin, but more delegates because of the higher total number of delegates.

Now the good news is that Obama will have the definitive lead by the end of this month. Granted, Hillary is doing a good job for stealing the nomination. But we won't let her hijack this nation again. If she steals the nomination, we will vote Republican, just to make her understand that you she is disqualified for presidency when she fights a nation's inspirational leader and gets on the way of people's hope.

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

Yesterday Obama said he wasn't going to ask for her to present her tax forms, he would let the press do it. Now today, because the press did not jump as usual to do his dirty work for him he is having his campaign do it.

Doesn't sound like change to me, it sounds like politics as usual.

Obama = Sweet talkin rhetoric comparable to Bush rhetoric.

Hillary 2008 - for good change we can achieve

Posted by: cjones210 | February 8, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

The simple argument is if you want a democrat in the White House you have to beat the Republican candidate. Obabma is inspiring millions of young Americans, independents, and some Republicans to vote for him.

Hillary, while an amazing woman and certainly skilled for the job, is polarizing. If she wins the nomination some of the independents and likely all of the Republicans who would vote for Obama will vote Republican. Polls show the currently enthusiastic youth may sit out and be further disenfranchised from the political process if Hillary is the candidate.

This isn't a time for internal democrat-bashing-democrat behavior and simple-minded political jabbing. It's a time to think long and hard about who can beat John McCain.

Lastly, it is Clarence Thomas - not the other way around.

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

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I created an account just to login and post my own comment, then I realized that petronicus had indeed posted all I needed to say. It's amazing the differences in posting styles for those 'supporting' Clinton and those supporting Obama.

I hope you realize that you are not doing your case justice. Though I am starting to think that perhaps republicans are trying their damnedest to get Hillary against McCain where it's been shown she would loose because she has negative support among independent and male voters.

It's sad that many of you can't even take the time to write properly or research your own work, but are ready to throw in your uninformed opinions. Yeah, that's who we want deciding on who runs our country: misinformed imbeciles.

Posted by: jstanother | February 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

CAN MRS CLINTON LOSE?...YESAMAZING ARTICLE OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama drop out of the campaign. Really, really? Is that what you've got? Is that what passes as great politcal thinking by Clinton supporters? No wonder she's loosing. Let's see who has the most delegates, the most contributors, and the most positive poll numbers by next Wednesday. Then who's ever behind, that person should drop out. How about that?

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

let's see them....are you scared?...why should we find out about this after election if she wins?...we will fine out!

hillary why don't you drop out?

i don't cry...i will vote for OBAMA!

not a victim!...vote!

Posted by: kshea003 | February 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Kadavul, there are several glaring errors in your views. Firstly, Obama never supported or defended Reagan's change in the course of our country--he merely acknowledged its *exsistance*. It is blind partisanship not to acknowledge that for much of the recent past the Republicans had more ideas and ideological force, although I (and Senator Obama) will be the first to recognize that this rightward-shift was wrongheaded and even possibly evil.
Secondly, you will remember (if you have even a passing interest in history) that people brought up the whole 'lack of experience' for both President Lincoln (who never held national office except for one 2-year term in the House of Representatives, and had two *failed* Senate bids to boot) and President Kennedy. "Be patient" former president and senior Democrat Truman said--thank goodness JFK did not listen.
Why is Washington experience so relevent? It is obviously somewhat important, but seeing as Washington [the federal gov't]has such a poor track record, this so-called 'experience' of Hillary's may actually be detrimental. I would argue that Senator Obama has just enough experience in the system to *change* the system, but not too much experience to be *corrupted* by it.
As for division and party-splitting, Obama has brough people to his campaign--and by simple logical extention, the Democratic Party--in droves. Who knows, my home state of Georgia may go Democrat (we had more Democrat primary voters for the first time in a long time, possibly ever--this was largely due to Obama [and, of couse, Bush's stunning incompetence])
If Hillary is nominated, droves of Republicans (Hillary-haters) who have never voted before will come out to vote against her. Now understand, I am no Hillary-hater, but it is just pure foolishness to ignore Hillary-hatred's exsistance--and extent.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, will have droves of young people and other groups (reformed Republicans, independants, and yes, black people) coming out to vote *for* him--Obama is the best path to a Democratic White House.
To not vote for him is to deny the American people that chance, that glorious, shimmering possibility, of having our first *truly great* president in a long time.

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

That's ridiculous, Kadavul. Hillary is a woman of dirty politics and you see everyday in the news how she manufactures lies about Obama (the latest one about universal healthcare), all out of frustration and out of knowledge that she won't survive in this race for long. If she really cared for America, she would join all other Americans in supporting Obama against the insane Republicans. If Hillary steals the nomination, shame on America and shame on those who buy her dirty politics out of pitty for a first woman running for president. It is Hillary who is dividing the nation by following her personal ambitions, not Obama.

Posted by: kaveh_vejdani | February 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC has just suspended David Shuster for his disgusting remarks.
Those of watching MSNBC knows just how biased that they have been in their coverage, going negative at Clinton and putting a most positive spin on every Obama event.
Chris Matthews was forced, kicking and screaming by NBC brass to apologize to Clinton for his sexist remarks.
Fox News has a conservative bias and that's their business. MSNBC plays the game of being "fair" but it is just all a sham!

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

Wow! Obama wants to see Hillary's Taxes.

Your going to get "A LOT" of Republicans to vote for you asking these kind of questions, Einstein!

You're the Candidate of Change?

Dude... have you ever taken money that you hadn't legally earned or reported?

Yeah, I thought so Pinocchio!

Ref: Presidential Campaign Questions for Dummies.

Posted by: randymk1 | February 8, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: angelhafiz | February 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm sooooooooooo OVER this big time loser named Barrack Obama!!!!!!!!!!

CLINTON WINS BECAUSE:

1. Florida
2. New York
3. Massachussettes
4. CALIFORNIA

The "PEOPLE" have spoken Barrack...she's in, and you're out!

Quit acting like a "win" in Alaska, or Idaho means something.

The states that matter...have spoken...GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

P.S. It's time you learn some proper respect for fellow politicians who have helped pave the way for you and your career. Quit looking like such a dick, and drop out already. We are done with you! The middle can have you...the Mighty East and West have spoken!!!!!!!

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Good lord! The Clintons are like pitbulls that just won't let go. If the American people want what's best for them in their own country, and to improve their relationships with the rest of the world, they will have to take that brave leap and elect Mr. Obama. If the Democratic party allows this to go on, the Republicans will win AGAIN! Weren't the Clintons enough trouble the first eight years? Your economy would be in better shape today if it weren't for NAFTA...didn't that come from a Clinton Presidency? The Canadians suffer over that too. Let's move on to a bright new future. Do you have the courage America? Insist on an end to political bikering and start with a clean slate. For the love of God, your children and your country.

Posted by: marthadavidson | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Stand up, all Democrats, for Hillary and for the future of the party. Those so called INDEPENDENT are trying to kidnap the party. Obama is not a real Dem. He could be worst than Thomas Clarence, the only black judge in the Supreme Court.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

It is high time Obama called it quit! Why waste millions and millions of money for a futile campaign - futile for Democrats. Obama is a good orator - agreed. He is young and energetic, inspiring - agreed. However, he is killing our chance of having a "fist fighter who can safeguard and restore our national virtues." Obama cannot deprive our most needy future that can undo all the rot happened in the past 7 years! We do not need a compromiser, who sees the Reagan's change-of-course is better than other presidencies in the last 4 decades. We do not need a president who can appoint republicans in the cabinet in order to reach out, and thus dilute our forgotten goals we have been waiting for to be fulfilled.

Request to Obama: Please stop dividing the party. Your and your team's attack on Clinton surpasses republican's attack on her. Stop aggravating aversion among the people toward the party. Please stop wasting money. You are behind Clinton at the end of the Super Tuesday. Almost all states that consistently vote for Democrats in Nov elections have chosen Clinton. Deal is done. Just quit. Please stop mesmerizing people to a point of no hope. If you really care for people, let your supporters have their money back. May be you can also return the money back to some bad corporations and get yourself clear of controversies for future. Turn out to be better man instead of looking like a spoiler and big money spender.

Posted by: kadavul | February 8, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Lets face the facts:
1) Any normal person would have left BC during or after his presidency for cheating and lying (yes lying!).
2) HC stuck by BC to make a name for herself and in the end, run for president.
So she is self serving and we have had 8 years of that with GBjr and his pandering to oil and defense companies at the expense of American tax dollars and American lifes.
Go Obama!!!

Posted by: ghresident | February 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

In the end of the day, people will fund out Obama is not a real Democrat. He could be worst than Thomas Clarence, the Supreme Court Judge.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Enough already!

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 8, 2008 7:04 PM | 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 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"Looks like Obama and his crooked campaigners are digging for anything they can find these days."

Wow, you should have typed that in all caps for maximum effect.

If someone were to have made their money the good old fashioned way, tax records would be less of an issue. However, Bill has been collecting huge fees from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai, as well as recently brokering a uranium mining deal with a dictator for $131 million dollars.

In this context it is certainly fair to ask where all of this money that was dumped into her campaign came from.

Posted by: FrankDelfino | February 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

This is getting painfully close to a GOP/Dem general election fight. Tax records? Dear goodness..

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

Posted by: parkerfl | February 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Three new polls were released today of the upcoming primary. Barack Obama is way ahead in both Virginia and Maryland. But in somewhat of a surprise, Hillary Clinton looks stronger than expected in Wisconsin. Full roundup: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/02/first-assesment-of-post-super-tuesday.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | February 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

So... Obama challenges Clinton to release tax returns and Clinton challenges Obama to more debates.

Looks like Obama and his crooked campaigners are digging for anything they can find these days.

fail.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Guess things weren't as tough for the Clinton campaign as it sounded...

"ABC News' Kate Snow reports that senior staff members on the campaign are not going without pay - they never stopped receiving checks."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

Oh yeah, they were PLANNING to go without pay.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | February 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

We all know that Senator Obama has personal wealth from writing two best-selling books but what we don't know is where in the heck all the millions of dollars Bill and Hillary have amassed has come from. Maybe knowing BEFORE the nomination is better than waiting till afterward. Would hate to vote for someone who has been getting paid by oh, say, Middle East Sheiks??? Or maybe paid by Lobby groups??? Yes, I think they should readily tell the American people where their millions have come from - if Hillary has nothing to hide, then there shouldn't be any reason for her to not divulge her income to us all and do so BEFORE THE NOMINATION is made. Of course, unless telling us the truth for once might hurt her "win at all costs" quest for power.

Posted by: frillymail1017 | February 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

So, Obama "stops short" but his campaign spokesman doesn't? Hasn't the standard been for candidates of both parties to wait and release their tax returns AFTER they secure the nomination?

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company