Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama: 'Remember N.H.'

By Shailagh Murray
AUSTIN, Texas -- Others may be writing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's political obituary, but "I have not," Sen. Barack Obama told reporters aboard his campaign plane this afternoon.

"Remember New Hampshire," he added, a reminder of the one stinging loss that the Illinois senator didn't see coming.

Obama looked ahead warily to Tuesday's primaries in Ohio and Texas, contests that could make or break Clinton's campaign. "Sen. Clinton is working tirelessly, as is Bill Clinton. These races are extraordinarily tight," said Obama. "I want to make sure we are doing everything we can to win these next two contests. That's how we've won in the past."

But Obama's fate also hangs in the balance. A less-than-decisive outcome means a longer battle and would suggest -- following 11 convincing victories in a row -- that Obama's momentum may be waning. But he sees Tuesday as a question of simple math.

"Our whole goal has been to get delegates," he told reporters. "I think we have to maintain our delegate lead and make sure we don't get blown out in those two states. If we come out of the four contests on Tuesday with a gap in the delegate count of 100 to 150, which we have right now, then I continue to believe that we will go to the convention with the most earned delegates, and believe that we should be the nominee."

Asked whether Clinton needed to win both Texas and Ohio to continue her campaign, Obama demurred with a smile and a wave, returning to his seat as the plane prepared to land.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 28, 2008; 3:34 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Muddy Road Ahead, and What the Candidates Can Do About It
Next: Hillary's Millions


nfxp gbtw kvfie uhbi mfiopwvq ojdvlc cuvkoq [URL][/URL] qaotzeyn umpcksby

Posted by: cvxjonf pzrnbsuai | April 16, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

iygtdjo lgoth gjdnqovsb ywqas rabdhj kwju imantxc [URL=]yjfdmckx wfurvqxdp[/URL]

Posted by: ybnctekj aeczkrid | April 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

iygtdjo lgoth gjdnqovsb ywqas rabdhj kwju imantxc [URL=]yjfdmckx wfurvqxdp[/URL]

Posted by: ybnctekj aeczkrid | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

iygtdjo lgoth gjdnqovsb ywqas rabdhj kwju imantxc [URL=]yjfdmckx wfurvqxdp[/URL]

Posted by: ybnctekj aeczkrid | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

cmsdnxe ghfm uvkzrs zcxlueog yhurqazed agftyiwsx itjlq trmy otfl

Posted by: oanp mrlvuxtg | April 16, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

cmsdnxe ghfm uvkzrs zcxlueog yhurqazed agftyiwsx itjlq trmy otfl

Posted by: oanp mrlvuxtg | April 16, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

cmsdnxe ghfm uvkzrs zcxlueog yhurqazed agftyiwsx itjlq trmy otfl

Posted by: oanp mrlvuxtg | April 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

lavegqus mxgnwrpa duhfmkyiz voix mysbidn mkrxtfj phkcgi

Posted by: ihwqgs kugmyfhcl | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

lavegqus mxgnwrpa duhfmkyiz voix mysbidn mkrxtfj phkcgi

Posted by: ihwqgs kugmyfhcl | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

lavegqus mxgnwrpa duhfmkyiz voix mysbidn mkrxtfj phkcgi

Posted by: ihwqgs kugmyfhcl | April 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

lavegqus mxgnwrpa duhfmkyiz voix mysbidn mkrxtfj phkcgi

Posted by: ihwqgs kugmyfhcl | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

exvckpsa igmvndjp hinyasuvq kwrv jbfnwcehv pzcl yufcb

Posted by: pwdl nskp | April 16, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Remember New Hampshire? The primary in NH was the first voting primary in the country and NH voters like that responsibility and take it seriously. We saw the results from Iowa, took notice, and ultimately, the polls had Obama with a sizable lead before the vote...and he lost by about 5%. However, Obama, showed he could get the white vote in NH. That was January 3rd, a long time ago in politics, and a lot has happened since then.Hillary was very well known here, her machine had been working NH for years, and Obama was a very fresh face. While he did not win here, his vote totals in NH were very impressive among white voters and sent the message that he must be considered going forward by all voters. I believe NH did its part,very early in this process, in giving a serious level of credibility to the Obama campaign and as we have witnessed, the campaign has only gotten stronger every day since.

Posted by: soonipi6 | February 29, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

stu252, I appreciate your civil tone but you are light years away from being the objective observer that you claim to be. Let's analyze your comments...

As far as judgment with Iraq goes everyone has great hindsight, but who will have the savy to be able to get up from a stumble (which by the way all of us make mistakes)and fight back. I think one has proven the ability for this and the other has not.

The objectivity of your analysis here is questionable, and that's being generous. You bring up hindsight as if Obama never had the foresight to war against the war, and then you go even further and commend Clinton from "getting up from a stumble". I don't know exactly how the members of the congress that voted for the war have recovered from their mistakes but you clearly think Clinton has not only recovered but she's recovered so well she now comes ahead of the guy who objected to the war from the get go.

And then you say..

And campaign finances are far different than running an economy. I might remind you that President Clinton presided over the largest expanding economy anyone can remember.

Well, surely campaign finances are different from the American economy but it's not like Clinton himself was single-handedly responsible for the economy. I'm sure he had a team of economists working with him and there is no reason to believe that Obama won't have a team of economists (he currently has several top economists on his team including fellow staff members on UofChicago..who by the way have won the highest number of Economics Nobel prizes among all schools in the world). I think it's a stretch to give Clinton the edge simply because the economy thrived under her husband's administration. And yes, the drubbing she took campaign finances desn't bode well for her because it raises questions about her ability to put together and manage a team that oversees the collection and dispensation of millions of dollars (not so much unlike the government). So I really hope that you mean it when you say...

I am open to convincing from Obama but it will take a little more than nice speeches. I hope you are still open to conversion as well. Go democratic process.

Posted by: TwoUnspokenwords | February 28, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

stu252 if in fact you haven't seen any evidence of Senator Obama's fine career, it's because you haven't bothered to look it up. Here, I'll help you out a little:

There's much more information where this came from if you're interested.

Posted by: bluefusion | February 28, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Julied I appreciate your comments and your enthusiasm for Senator Obama, however I do note that your response is no different than much of the bickering I alluded to in my first comment. As I said Mr. Obama presents a great campaign, I think that many of his supporters suggest he has a large record however similar to the supporter on TV I have not seen any evidence of this fine career. I have noted that he did try to move the Nuclear industry in the right direction with his proposed legislation to make reporting of spiils to the public mandatory. Great idea. However Senator Obama took the road which he has been professing as the right road to take, which I think is important since he has cast his campaign with these ideas, he took the road of compromise. He compromised with the republicans watering down the legislation to get it past a republican dominated legislature. Then when that was not enough, of course the nuclear industry wanted a say, he watered it down some more, essentially taking all of the teeth out of the legislation. It now lays dead on the floor in legislative obscurity precisly because Senator Obama took the compromise and togetherness route. We need a fighter, someone with the necessary political jiu jitsu skills to advance the democratic causes. If you don't like universal health care or insurance coverage(tomato, tamato)thats fine but both candidates have said that this is their goal and both have good plans. The Clinton plan (according to fact check experts etc) is the one which will work. Both will have similar costs, higher than no insurance, but the alternate is that millions will remain uncovered which also has it's hidden costs(people without health care cost society as a whole in actual monetary terms). As far as judgment with Iraq goes everyone has great hindsight, but who will have the savy to be able to get up from a stumble (which by the way all of us make mistakes)and fight back. I think one has proven the ability for this and the other has not. And campaign finances are far different than running an economy. I might remind you that President Clinton presided over the largest expanding economy anyone can remember. I am open to convincing from Obama but it will take a little more than nice speeches. I hope you are still open to conversion as well. Go democratic process.

Posted by: stu252 | February 28, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Senator Clinton's behavior is disrespectful, certainly not presidential. She's calling herself a fighter now, and touts 35 years of fighting with other people, thats why she is unpopular. She can't work with people or unite opposing sides.

Also, the other day, a New York Times poll came out that confirmed what Obama's recent wins also show - that Senator Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November. According to the Times, "In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to defeat Senator John McCain.... Nearly 6 in 10 say he has the best chance of beating Mr. McCain, double the numbers who believed Mrs. Clinton was more electable."

Posted by: Katy7540 | February 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse


That video was for woman only and if shown to both sexes might lead to a loss of votes. The maker of the video was rather presumptuous as someone else noted.

What the video reminded me was that I would have voted for Ms. Richards for president. There are not many man or woman that I would vote for, only opponents that I would vote against.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 28, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

I would like to define a characteristic of Sen. Clinton and some of her female supporters that leads to their unlikable behavior. They feel a sense of entitlement for her being president. The president of NOW when she chastised Sen., Kennedy for supporting Sen. Obama, expressed it. You only chastise him if you feel you he has no right to give anyone but Clinton his support. Their attitude was not you made a mistake but how dare you. Sen. Clinton exudes that kind of attitude as well.
Jesse Jackson ran with such a viewpoint. It was applauded by some but rejected by many more. Another thing about Clinton is she voted in a manner to make herself look tough in the foreign policy area. I fear she would send our boys off to die to appear like a strong president. She is not secure about her own strength.
I believe our country would benefit from a female in that office in the same way I feel a black man would be helpful. The first woman president will have to approach the campaign without resentment towards men, if she doesn't want resentment in return.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 28, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

It's nice to hear from a Hillary supporter who actually has the ability to communicate, rather than just throw around nonsense and inaccuracies. That said, allow me to counter your points.

First of all, Hillary's plan is a Universal INSURANCE plan, not "Universal Healthcare". Her mandate to force people to buy insurance would hurt people in the middle class who are struggling financially, but who are not poor enough to qualify for government plans. (I have been to her website and read her plan in it's entirety.)

As far as the economy goes, Obama is the ONLY CANDIDATE out of the remaining 3 who HAS NOT BANKRUPTED HIS CAMPAIGN! That is VERY significant. I am mortified that anyone would want to put McCain or Clinton in charge when they can't even manage their own finances. Remember, Hillary actually raised MORE money than Obama did last year- yet she still managed to go broke in January.

Obama has an impressive lawmaking record. He has held office 4 years longer than Hillary. He has authored, passed, and presented hundreds and hundreds of bills. You can easily find lists of his accomplishments in the Illinois senate, and the US senate, with a simple google search.

On a side note, Hillary voted for and supported the Iraq war. Obama wasn't just against the Iraq war. He didn't just speak out against it. He wrote a thoughtful assessment of the risks and ramifications of going into Iraq- and was right on damn near every count. His judgement is far superior to McCain's or Clinton's. (And remember, part of why our economy is going down is because of the massive amounts of money being spent in Iraq.)

Now, to HISPANA, go to;

You can find answers to all the questions you posed (however, i suspect that like alot of people whom dislike Obama, you don't really want to know the truths).

Posted by: julieds | February 28, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Not to direct attention from the fascinating personal details of the candidates' personalities, but where does the US Constitution mandate that the government provide health care for all citizens? Our campaigns fall victim to the media blitzkreig of personalities and ignore what our elections are about. When I hear all these blowhards go onabout "I " am going to provide this or that, Ican't help but remember the peaceful " take from each according to his ability to produce and give to each according to his ability to need. scary philosophy.

Posted by: jstratt2 | February 28, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments here are largely bickering does anybody care about real issue facing Americans? The fact is senator Obama is a very intelligent candidate he has a great ability to take on all of the good qualities of an opponent while rejecting the rest. Kinda like a good guy blob. The thing is though Senator Clinton is a giant of public service, giving the majority of her life to public service. I don't agree with all of the negative comments about her. I think people in the heat of a heated campaign are passionately defending their candidates, but please talk the issues. Senator Clinton has a plan for Universal Health Care, Senator Obama has a plan to attempt universal health care. Senator Clinton has a plan for repairing the economy, she also has a very good asset in her husband who (despite all of the bad remarks, left the best economy of recent history to the Bush admin). sentor Obama has very good speeches however there is no "proof is in the pudding factor" other than the nuclear waste legislation he said he got passed which actually got "compromised" into obscurity, it was a good cause and a good effort though. Obama has a good team however we need a leader rather than a follower. Senator Clinton has been through the mill a couple of times and Senator Obama speaks with the command of a Winston Churchill or a Martin Luther King. It is beautiful to listen to but I can see that Senator Clinton has the "skills to pay the bills". if these were 2 fairly good looking white males and the other things about them were the same. I think it is obvious that Senator Clinton has the substance required. I love the speeches but I think America needs the unquestionable command of the issues which Senator Clinton displays. I do not think I we can settle for "a lot of feathers but not much chicken"

Posted by: stu252 | February 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

A video no female should miss.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 28, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse


All caps are seen as shouting and rude. Senator Kennedy said in his endorsement speech for Senator Obama many nice things about Senator Clinton and outlined why he choose to endorse Obama. He said, no matter who wins he knows "we" will all be behind the winner.

I wonder if they will still be behind a scolding lady who insults not only her co-workers in government but the citizens she wants to preside over.

I am not a Democrat. I do not have to stand behind her, I have others I can vote for in November. She shows her leadership ability with people like you. No thanks, had enough of that kids stuff under the Bush clan's lead. Maturity, honesty, integrity are not among Clinton's qualities and that disqualifies her for me.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 28, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"...a reminder of the one stinging loss that the Illinois senator didn't see coming" A fine example of how reporters sway public opinion.

The morning of Iowa Senator Obama refused to answer the Will you win today? question. He said he thought he would do well. Senator Clinton when asked the same question said she was going to come out the winner. She was so upset about not doing so she broke down into tears at the chance of not taking her seat at the throne of the Bush/Clinton monarchy.

Why do people approve of mandatory health insurance with government penalty? What if, perhaps a native American uses alternative sources of health care and does not want the added bill and insurance premium? How can college kids afford the insurance and still stay in school? Insurance does not provide health care it provides another bill for financially strapped people. Do not know why Obama and others say she is smart (even those 'white haired trolls'). Dumb if you ask me. Garnish wages?

Republicans are wishing she gets the Dem bid; easy win for them. Either way it is hello Iran and welcome back draft. Too bad females are voting for a woman president rather than a smart one. If they have to have a female: try Cynthia McKinney. Not at all flaky, mood swings, lies as is Dame Clinton.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

mr obama,
what would happen if we stopped buing from china?
I am in construction and work sucks.

Posted by: chuckstach | February 28, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Hispana: About your questions, Hillary Clinton has thoroughtly investigated Senator Obama and all she could come up with was an allegation about a kindegarten essay. Obama's Muslim Father left him when he was two. He was raised by Christians. He has denounced the anti-semitic and anti-catholic beliefs of radicals. He stands for bringing people of all faiths together. He is a uniter.

Posted by: Katy7540 | February 28, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Thinker" obviously does not have the ability to think just throw around things she has heard her leader tell her. Like here leader; disrespectful. Hillary won NH by crying and sending out mailers that lied about Senator Obama. Ya know the thing she accuses him of doing, only his mailers are factual.

People that think are thinking about Senator Clinton's yes vote to the Iran Resolution; how she can claim to be ready when she forgot to do her filing in order to be on the ticket in Pennsylvania. Lucky the PA governor endorses her, he gave her a two week filing extension citing "snow" as the reason she could not get it done on time.

Thinkers also think about all the scandals and drama attached to the Clintons, they know she has overstated her "35 years of experience", they think about Bill and Dubai and how that plays out with the conflicts of interest she cited GWB for in the east coast port deal. They think about her vote yes to cluster bombs and innocent dead babies and children in Iraq.

She votes like those "white haired trolls" or are you too busy to research and figure it out on your own.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 28, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"WE should be the nominee"? I thought that the Clintons were the only ones running for co-President?! Posted by: JakeD | February 28, 2008 04:05 PM

Duh, Jake he is talking about his campaign team when he says "we". But I am glad you brought the co-presidency~seems it would be against the law to have a two-term President back in the White House as a close personal adviser to the Hillary. I guess those that vote for them do believe in the fairy tale return to their 1990s run in the White House that the Clintons keep promising as they campaign.

Posted by: alyceclover | February 28, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I understand the frustration people have with the sexist way some media have dealt with Clinton. As a woman, I too, want to see a woman elected president. But, not Clinton. Ladies, this woman voted to support the war in Iraq. As a result there is no money left for healthcare, schools, or anything else we might care about. We need someone with better judgment in the White House. Someone who can unite the country, bring us back together to face the enormous challenges ahead, someone who can repair our relations with the world. I believe Obama is best suited for the job.

Posted by: hotpoet66 | February 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

As an 'outsider' the factor creating interest is the rest of the worlds perception of the future leadership of the US.
Sirack makes the point: "the politics of the past few decades has been "us against them". In this regard, Obama seems to be the candidate with the widest appeal.
His election would certainly offer an opportunity for a degree of inclusiveness.
How tainted by Washington he and his team would then become is of course, another matter.

Posted by: fairfieldhalls | February 28, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Once again Obama shows how careful, intelligent, and insightful he is. He is not counting out his opponent, still working hard on the every-state strategy that has worked so well for his campaign.

He is also gallant and respectful. At the last debate, he said that Clinton would make a better president than McCain. I have yet to hear a similar admission from her.

Democrats unite!

Posted by: DoTheMath | February 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

While psychologically, Obama needs to close the deal the math is very much in his favor.

Currently ahead by 160 delegates, even 6% losses in OH, RI and TX will be offset by VT, WY and MS. So by March 11th Obama will still be 160 pledged delegates ahead.

Then we have NC, OR, IN AND Puerto Rico.

Barring no major gaffe, Obama will go to the convention with+ 200 elected delegates at the very worst.

Posted by: yiannis | February 28, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Mandated health are coverage? Like Medicare? Gee, I think creating an entirely new beaurocracy modeled after one that is likely to create an 11 TRILLION dollar defecit is exactly what our country needs. Remember, when a politician says they are going to give you something they are reaching for YOUR wallet not theirs.

Posted by: Pthomas2mm | February 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

As far as I can tell, there isn't much difference between the policies that both present. The big difference that I see is in who they are and how they go about accomplishing their goals. If I can coin Hillary in that regard I would say she is "us against them" kind of person. The "us" being the Democrats and within the Democrats those that support her campaign, and within that camp those that have shown log term loyalty. Obama on the other hand is "Together we can do anything" kind of guy. He is about brining as many people as he could in his comp and focusing this collective attention to the issue at hand. In this regard, he is more inclusive and new converts are always welcome.

While this doesn't seem a lot on the surface, it is a fundamental break to how politics has been done in the past. If you notice, the politics of the past few decades has been "us against them" and in its worst mutation it takes the form of "take no prisoner" approach. The only people that this kind of politics benefits are mediocre politicians who are myopic in their ability to see the big picture. These politicians exaggerate small differences between people to secure their hold on power. Of course the consequence of this style of politics can be seen all over the place. You can attribute every major issue that faces our country to this shortcoming.

It is time for politics of unity and Obama stands tall in this regard. We all need to take a shift in the way we look at politics. We really need to get that we need each other and that the most urgent needs of this country will not be addressed without this shift in awareness. We are not going to remain the world leader for much longer without this shift. It is time to stop bickering and rallying around the candidate that has already articulated this need.

Posted by: Sirack | February 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The pro hillary commentators are espescially rabid today. I guess it must be that compassionate mothering side that she brings out.

Posted by: cmsatown | February 28, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse


Most politicians refer to their candidacies as "we" instead of "I."

Posted by: ericp331 | February 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

HANGING ROCK, Ohio -- Senator Hillary Clinton, who has blasted rival Barack Obama for allegedly misleading people about her health care position to voters, presented his health care views inaccurately before an audience today in rural Ohio.

Clinton, speaking on poverty and family wellness at a community center here, told a couple hundred people that she was committed to universal health care because families can't be fully healthy unless everyone in the family is. It was part of a broader point about the interconnectedness of health care costs, gas prices, and the challenges of raising a family today.

"If you don't have health insurance for everyone, we're never going to get out of this," she said. "We're just going to keep running around in circles."

This, she said, was one of the big differences between her and Obama.

"I want ... each and every member of the family to have health insurance. My opponent only wants your children to have health insurance," she said. "I don't think that's smart."

That is hardly Obama's position.

The difference in their health care proposals is this: Clinton would require that everyone purchase insurance, a mandate that she says she would impose in tandem with bringing costs down through subsidies and other measures. Obama would only impose such a mandate on parents, requiring them to cover their children.

Clinton has argued that Obama would leave 15 million people uncovered by not extending his mandate to adults. Obama, though, also has a detailed health care plan to cover the uninsured, and he has pledged to have affordable coverage available for all Americans by the end of his first term.

Clinton is free, of course, to argue that her health care plan and expertise are superior to Obama's. But her suggestion that Obama doesn't want to cover parents and other adults is simply misleading.

Posted by: jkallen001 | February 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Hispana and Thinker, you two represent the blindness of some folks in this country: namely, that if a brilliant person of African heritage stood before their very face, they would deny his or her existence. Nevertheless, despite your blindness, Obama's brilliance has been illuminating even among your friends, neighbors, associates, and relatives. The light of his talents and brilliance will not be obscured by the dark thoughts and blindness of your own vision. Go Obama!

Posted by: bleon2000 | February 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I just realized that I wanted to be responding to Hispana with my last comment. Sorry about that jakeD.
The other thing I wanted to add in resonse to Hispana's comments deals with Obama's faith. This is such an old and tired story. Of course Obama is a Christian. How many times does he have to tell people that? And it's also true that the Muslim faith is a part of his family's makeup. The thing I don't understand is WHAT DOES IT MATTER?? Please someone explain this to me.

Posted by: michaeldgraham | February 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

what's funny is how people always assume that NO one can tell where their IP address orginates when they write comments claiming to be one thing or another--to either bolster their point or (in their opinion) create discord. for instance, someone implying that they support HC (or BO) in order to sling mud or xenophobic screed at the other Democratic candidate, when your comment orignates from...THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.

Posted by: rajjjj | February 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that Senator Clinton talks how she must fight sexism, and then produces "for women" ads and encourages them to send them to all their female friends. She is playing the gender card with one hand while complaining about sexism with the other - hypocrite! If it were not for the older white women that have mistaken this presidential race for the feminist movement Hillary would have been toast a long time ago. She took THIRD in Iowa. THIRD. The folks that got the longest look at Hillary didn't even think she was second best (in Iowa, the bastion of sexism?). To underscore how high her negatives are, she barely beat thin air in Michigan. Former presidents that ran unopposed in MI garnered 90% of the vote, not 55%. She cannot win the general election. She is losing this contest because she mismanaged her campaign and offers a bitter partisan style of politics that is being rejected. Did you ever notice that her most effective ads and videos, are the ones that don't focus on her? There's a message there. Texas, do your thing.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

People don't reject Hillary because she is a woman. This is the party that is lead in the House by a woman.
The problem of Hillary is she is too calculating. Everything she does is about getting and keeping power. She will say anything and do anything to get elected. When you call her on it, she whines.

Posted by: tchanta | February 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

i want to respond to jakeD, and i really hope he's still checking this because i would love for him to write back.
You really believe that the millions of Americans who have voted for Obama, of all ages, all races and all walks of life are naive? Don't you think you're being a little naive and completely disingenuous?

First of all, it's pretty dumb to believe that the media and Obama have some how hooked up, and therefore he's gotten a free ride. Remember the plagiarism charge? The media made that a much bigger story than it ever needed to be. And second of all, you honestly believe that if there is some huge nasty rotten skeleton in Obama's closet that the Clinton political machine wouldn't have discovered it and smashed Obama over the head with it?? That's very naive of you.

Posted by: michaeldgraham | February 28, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is a fine American. He is intelligent and hardworking. He served in the state senate in Illinois and now services in the US Senate. He is a fine husband and father. He has two lovely daughters who are small children.

Please agree to disagree with your choice and your vote.
It is not necessary to tear down fine people just to win.

Obama is a Christain.
He was raised by a midwestern mother and her parents. His mother died of cancer. He has relatives in Kansas. His sister teaches in Hawaii where Barack was born. He has a beautiful grandmother in Kenya who works her own vegetable garden.

?Hispana and Thinker
Are you fine Americans? Do you have families?

Posted by: Cyd.Rather | February 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary brought gender into the camapaign several times, always talking about how being the first female president would be historic and a change..blah blah. Obama has never made a statement like that about being black.

Hillary plays the gender card every chance she gets, Obama rarely ever mentions his race and definately does not openly try to get people to vote for him because of it.


Posted by: Collin1 | February 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse


That ad that you referred to in Texas with Ann Richards has incensed two of her three children. While her daughter gave the ok for the spot, her two sons said that they did not think it was right for someone to presume who their mother would have supported. They even made a direct plea to the Clinton campaign not to air the ad. Is this really how Sen. Clinton and Mandy Grunwald want to show that they have support in TX, by putting words in the mouth of the deceased former Governor?

Posted by: dtsb | February 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Thinker & Hispana:

You two are some angry individuals! Instead of trying to address your rants piece for piece, I'd ask two questions. Thinker, do you discount those "white haired trolls in the Democratic Boys Club" who support Hillary Clinton or only the ones who have chosen to back her opponent? Hispana, you suggest that Obama brought race into the campaign but I never recall him claiming that he was the "black" candidate. I do however recall Pres. Clinton trying to lessen Obama's victory in SC by say Jesse Jackson won there twice so big deal.

Contrary to many posts that appear on these pages, I feel that Hillary Clinton is outstandingly qualified to be the next president. However, I feel Obama is too and, unfortunately, for Sen. Clinton she has not found a way to make her case that she would be the better fit.

Posted by: dtsb | February 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse


Thinker: live up to your name and speak coherently - meaning MAKE SENSE

"We're winning without you Trolls !! Because she's awesome, and brilliant, articulate and informed."
-awesome huh? sounds like a very mature comment.

"Omaba almost broke his neck turning toward Hillary when the Russian President question was asked. He's always her favorite to go first. Because he's a know nothing."
-actually she jumped to be first at the question...even though she complained about being asked first often.

Hispana: give me facts... Obama started the whole racism thing? how so?

"What is your true beliefs? In public you profess to be a christian but your background shows that the muslim faith played a major influence."
-how so??? what is your evidence here? ALL of the questions you pose for Obama can easily be asked of HRC. You would rather something damaging come out about Obama than having a Democrat win the presidency...because that is exactly what would happen. That would destroy the democratic base.

Posted by: jkallen001 | February 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Thinker | February 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

That's what he thinks. And he's an under qualified no nothing without a resume.


We're winning without you Trolls !! Because she's awesome, and brilliant, articulate and informed.

Omaba almost broke his neck turning toward Hillary when the Russian President question was asked. He's always her favorite to go first. Because he's a know nothing.

So, let's GO!! Blow this man without a resume out of the water!!!

Posted by: Thinker | February 28, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I remember New Hampshire so well, Senator Obama, because it was the beginning of a subvertive campaign to completely eliminate Senator Clinton. Contrary to what your team and the media has spread, it was your team who began a racial campaign to diminish her against the african-american folks and among the whites since it has not been only racial but also gender. It has been a highly underhanded and effective campaign cemented on the naivete of all americans and I regret that your team has not yet unraveled for what you are. I have some questions:

1)What are your continuing connections to all of these radical church and individuals?

2)What is your true beliefs? In public you profess to be a christian but your background shows that the muslim faith played a major influence.

3)Who were your acquaintances when you were in college and as an activist in Chicago?

4)Why is everyone in the media so afraid to do a thorough investigation of your past?

The sudden rush and frenzy to rush your campaign makes me shudder and I hope that we will not be shocked with finding out some revealing truths when it is too late. How qualified are you to deal with the realities of an outside world that poses a threat to our future? Speeches will not do it but guts and determination and good vision!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | February 28, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"WE should be the nominee"? I thought that the Clintons were the only ones running for co-President?!

Posted by: JakeD | February 28, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The reason he is winning is that he hasn't taken anything for granted. The reason Mrs. Clinton is losing is that she took everything for granted before anyone cast a vote. If he begins to take victories for granted, and look past getting the nomination, not only might he lose said nomination, he will lose any edge in the general he might have if he continues to campaign hard and win the hearts and minds of the voters.

Posted by: eric | February 28, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company