Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Ups Contrast at Wilmington Rally of 20,000

Barack Obama greets supporters at Rodney Square in downtown Wilmington, Del. Sunday, Feb. 3, 2008. (AP).

By Alec MacGillis
WILMINGTON, Del. -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama flew from St. Louis to Delaware for a rally in Wilmington before returning to Chicago to watch the Super Bowl in the comfort of home with his family (and maybe some of his Secret Service agents, whom he said he'd invite in if they wanted to join him).

An estimated 20,000 turned out for the rally at a downtown square in Wilmington, according to the fire department, with thousands who couldn't fit inside the square squeezing up against the perimeter fence and spreading onto the steps of surrounding buildings. It was the largest Wilmington rally city officials could remember.

Obama expanded on his customary stump speech by including a new section arguing that he would make a stronger opponent against Sen. John McCain in the general election because he had opposed the war in Iraq from the start and would thus be less conflicted than Clinton in debating that issue with McCain.

"If John McCain is the nominee, then the Democratic Party has to ask itself, do you want a candidate who has similar policies to John McCain on the war in Iraq, or someone who can offer a stark contrast?" Obama said. "When I'm the nominee McCain won't be able to say, 'You were for this war in Iraq,' because I wasn'Â’t....I can offer a clear and clean break from the failed policies of George W. Bush....We need clarity in this campaign, and thatÂ’s what I offer."

It was just the latest enormous rally for Obama. The past week has seen him draw audiences of 18,000 in Denver, 20,000 in St. Louis, and more than 13,000 in Boise, Idaho. The size of the crowds has astonished those attending and persuaded some of them that Obama was on the way to winning their states, even if polls showed him closing the gap but still trailing.

"It's a snowball running down a steep hill. It's picking up all along," said Kevin Worden, the director of Habitat for Humanity in Rochester, Minn., and one of the 18,000 who turned out to see Obama in Minneapolis on Saturday.

"Look at these numbers!" said Helen Douglas-Taylor, a St. Louis teacher, as she looked out at the full floor of the St. Louis Rams football stadium on Saturday night. "We're going to change this nation. We're just ready as a nation for something fresh. And he is fresh."

To be sure, plenty of those attending Obama rallies are still undecided, coming to see him to help make up their mind, or simply to catch a glimpse of a public sensation. In Wilmington, Debbie Demeter, a teacher, said she was still trying to decide between Obama and Clinton. "He's a very elegant speaker, and a sign of hope and change for the future. He's young, and he can bring forth some new ideas," she said. But, she added, "I would love to see the first woman president."

But there is an unmistakable sense on the trail that, heading into Super Tuesday, Obama has succeeded in reclaiming his momentum. Voters turning out for the rallies say the reason for his resurgence is quite simple: he embodies change in a way that Clinton simply cannot and is offering a sort of communal inspiration and excitement that is hard to resist.

In Wilmington Sunday, Nick Whelan, a 27-year-old carpet installer and bartender, came to the rally still undecided between Obama and Clinton. After the speech, he said there was no contest. "He was awesome. I was digging it, man. He convinced me. He's really looking for change in the way this country's being run. I'm excited for Tuesday."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 3, 2008; 5:58 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Pressed on Electability
Next: Maria Shriver Comes Out for Obama


Bottom Line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: JackSmith1 | February 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes, I listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and try to think of a rebuttal for their arguments. I find I inevitably come up empty and realize, while they talk and talk and talk, they hardly ever make a factual claim in support of their arguments. They are entirely based on caricaturing and impugning the motives of their opposition while making sweeping generalizations and unfounded suppositions.
I mean, how do you rebut, "...the Libs say they want to let tax cuts for the rich expire, but what they really want is to destroy America!"?

Obama supporters give me that same feeling.

Posted by: zukermand | February 4, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse


I don't deny that Nader was a factor, but the situations are not comparable. Nader was a third party candidate and siphoned off the progressive vote. Obama will be the mainstream candidate.

And yes, Bill Clinton was fairly popular in spite of everything, but that is Exactly the point. In a close race, it doesn't take much to tip the balance. It's hard to deny that the Clinton's are polarizing.

It was obvious in 2000 that GW was a buffoon. After 8 years of relative peace and prosperity, there was no compelling reason to switch course to a Republican. It was obvious even back then that Reaganomics benefited the rich and ignored everyone else.

But GW was a "Uniter" who could restore family values to the White House, and that was what got him elected.

I used to believe that the criticisms of the Clinton's were mostly unfounded, but recent events on the campaign trail have made me change my mind. The country can't survive another 8 years of partisan gridlock.

I used to blame Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, etc, for their tactics of pandering to various special interests in order to build a coalition of what would normally be strange bedfellows. Those tactics foster extremism, but Mark Penn's ad agency style micro-targeting of various constituencies is no better.

You might be able to cherry pick enough delegates to win the nomination, and conceivably use the same approach in November to win the Presidency, but then what -- Partisan and perhaps even class warfare.

This country is facing too many huge challenges to continue in an adversarial mode. We absolutely must find some common ground to begin to solve our problems. We must learn to ignore the extremists on the Right AND on the Left and learn how to make some compromises to be able to move forward at all.

I don't, and I believe most if not all Republicans will never see Hillary Clinton as someone that can accomplish that goal. On the other hand, Obama at least has a chance. If nothing else, it seems pretty obvious that he knows how to bring people together for a common cause. And he can inspire people -- something this country will desperately need to be able to solve our problems.

While Hillary is smart, and possibly genuinely socially committed, does ANYONE really think she could be elected to anything without riding on her husband's coat tails?????

Posted by: stevendcross | February 4, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Change can be made by someone who understands how to work within a system and who has proven, based on her record, that she can make significant change.
I'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, but Susan's comments just don't make sense. Where did Hillary get all this "experience" working with anyone? Her legislative background is less than Obama's! Being the wife of a politician and mucking up the one major task given to you in that capacity, her health-care debacle, does NOT qualify as positive experience. Unless you mean negative experience. Instead of electing the best person in 2000 (or allowing Al Gore to be seated as president), we let the Supreme Court braveheart us into installing a totally incompetent, corrupt, lawless political heir named George W. Bush. He had loads of "experience" ruining businesses, gangbanging the taxpayers out of money (the Texas Rangers stadium boondoggle), getting bailouts from wealthy corporate friends, and pushing a right-wing agenda in Texas under the guise of "bipartisanship." We don't need that kind of "experience" EVER AGAIN. We need visionary presidents who're also pragmatic, people like George Washington, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and yes, it, even St. Ronald Raygun, who raised taxes when he needed to (6 out of 8 years), dropped the God-squad when he needed to, pulled troops out of harms way when he needed to, and expanded the federal government when he needed to. We need someone like Obama (or Clinton), not the cant-driven, duplicitous people on the right. And BTW, George W. couldn't even man up enough to admit he was a cokehead, that he blew off military service, or that he was a falling-down alcoholic. Please, people, we need a change, we can do it, yes we can! Obama (or Clinton) 2008!

Posted by: getdeb1 | February 4, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I am an older, white female--a lifelong Republican and have a more conservative background than most people can imagine. My grandfather was born on a slave-holding plantation in SC, fought in the civil war--I went to Bob Jones University and my first job was working for Sen. Strom Thurmond. Can't get more conservative than that. Yet, I am convinced that Obama is the best choice. A vote for HIllary is a vote for Bill--unfortunately they are both deceitful liars. The Republican candidates want us to be in a perpetual war like in the novel, 1984. My grandaddy will be turning over in his grave but you have to change with the times. If Obama can convince me that he is the best candidate, he can convince anybody.

Posted by: ferrolaw2000 | February 4, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

hotnuke has been spouting racial hatred, sometimes thinly disguised, at other times not even that, and it's astounding to me how he's allowed to continue it.

It really isn't on, and I would ignore it but I've done that for a while now and yet he is still at it.

Posted by: henni.ouahes | February 4, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama's remarks about his advantage over Hillary vs. McCain are perhaps his most compelling argument. I recall in 2004, shortly before the Iowa Caucus, when Saddam was captured. Howard Dean, then the Dem frontrunner, congratulated Bush for this success, and then pointed out that Saddam's capture didn't make us any safer, an observation that struck me as irrefutable. The rest of the candidates ganged up on Dean for this remark, Kerry most of all. We lost the election right there. If capturing Saddam made us safer, then the war in Iraq was justified. So what exactly is the Democrat's argument for changing Presidents?
If there is a terrorist attack in our country before November, Obama has an argument to make--Iraq was a drain that made things more perilous and kept us from finishing off Al Queda in Afghanistan. Furthermore, we need our National Guard back home to deal with these attacks. Hillary has no argument, and in our culture, people are gonna feel a lot safer with a male and a soldier in dangerous times. Hillary will lose to McCain; Obama will win.

Posted by: maxraimi | February 4, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Susan and the rest of the Hillary sock puppets..please list for me the kind of change you say Hillary has made. Are you aware that Obama has 50 percent more elected legislative experience than Hillary? So this "35 years of experience" meme is really just because she's 15 years older, right? You have to take her word for that experience since she's locked up her records when she was first lady. NO one is allowed to see them until 2009. Now, if I was truly the experienced candidate and I was truly proud of my record as first lady, I'd be the first to shove copies of my papers into very reporter's hand within 1,000 miles. But Hillary hasn't done that...the proof of her experience lies in a vault somewhere in Little Rock while she gets to jet around the country saying she has 35 years of experience. Oh yeah,Hillary, SHOW ME!. Because when I examine your senate record, all I see is that George W. Bush duped you into going to war. You got played by our least-intelligent president in modern history. That alone should make disqualify you for the White House. I don't see one substantive piece of legislation that you AUTHORED and then had signed into law. NOT ONE! And HOTNUKE, your mere existence is not sufficient to warrant a response.

Posted by: markiebee001 | February 4, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

Something really exciting is happening and sweeping through AMERICA as super Tuesday draws closer, but still every voter need to get out and VOTE OBAMA, he is the only nomination that will bring about a UNITED States of America, something we all want and need, sadly Clinton can't bring about change or hope.

Posted by: jaybs1 | February 4, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

The President proposes legislation. Congress writes it, debate it, improve it, and approve it for the President to sign or veto. The differences in policy between Clinton and Obama are minimal.

The President will have a better staff and cabinet to help him/her improve on and polish their platform.

What really matters is:

1) Does the person show an INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE and APTITUDE?

Clinton - B+
Obama - A+

I think Obama is just smarter. But Clinton is darn smart as well.

2) Does the person show SOUND JUDGEMENT?

Clinton - C+
Obama - B+

Clinton voted with Bush on too many key items over the past seven years. Causing $1T in costs, 4000+ deaths, and the invasion of a country that was neutralized. Obama was dead on in 2002. Look up his speech. He predicted most of what's happened in Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. Not many did.

3) Does the person have enough EXPERIENCE to be an executive?

Clinton - C+
Obama - C

I think Bill Richardson is probably the only person that would get an A in this area. Typically, Senators are not seen as the best candidates for President. I am giving Clinton credit for her time in the White House but that is what gives her a "+" over Obama who has more elected experience. Remember that he is 47. Clinton is 61. Her resume might be a little longer than his.

4) Does the person show a history of GETTING THINGS DONE across party lines?

Clinton - C-
Obama - B+

Clinton has done great things but failed to reform Health Care while in the White House. Republicans did not find her easy to work with and she was seen as a high and mighty intellectual telling Congress how to do things. Remember she had a Democratic Congress and failed. Both in Illinois and in the Senate, Obama has received praise for this work across party lines.

5) Has the person shown a history of standing by their PRINCIPLES when it was unpopular to do so?

Clinton - C-
Obama - B+

Obama was dead on in 2002. Look up his speech. He predicted most of what's happened in Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. Not many did. He made a real estate deal that was plain stupid but it was for his own house and not some huge multi-million dollar deal to scam investors. I am sure we've all made mistakes. I am willing to give him a pass on this for now. Clinton agreed with Bush, a Republican dictator too many times. She says all the right things now but didn't when it counted and when Democrats were looking for leadership. In my opinion, she is partly responsible for this administrations actions and the failure of the democrats since 2006.

6) Can the person MOTIVATE and INSPIRE the foot soldiers into action?

Clinton - B
Obama - A+

Just from my experience, Obama wins this hands down. The organization he's developed is simply amazing for someone who just came into the public scene in late 2004. Clinton is working on the base she and Bill developed. She gets credit but it has to be shared with Bill. Even now.

7) Can the person build a STRONG COALITION?

Clinton - B+
Obama - A

Clinton has inherited Bill's coalition but Obama has chipped away at it in a relative short period of time. What does this tell me? It says that Obama is a very skilled politician. Kennedy(s), Kerry, Tim Kaine, Kathleen Selibius to name a few. One organization is 1-2 years old, the other is 18-20 years old.


Clinton - B
Obama - A-

My point is that we need a super-smart, energetic, coalition builder in the White House who can inspire the base into action. Congress also needs a refresh. If we don't send a message to them, they will keep any President from succeeding. They are owned by the special interest such as - big oil, pharma, military-complex, and health insurance.

This election is about change across the board. President and congress!

Posted by: comingawakening | February 4, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

I was in Wilmington DE this morning. Over 20,000 showed up in the cold morning to see Barack speak. It was my third time. I saw him in Columbia, SC after the win. Over 6,000 showed up that night to celebrate. The building only held 2100. We were lucky to get in. I then saw him at a smaller setting (less than 300) between the Kennedy endorsement and the State of the Union speech. Kerry was with him at this smaller session.

At every event, support was very strong.

Hillary is not as motivating and has similar plan. I will vote for Barack.

I also wanted to point out how Clinton sold us on inexperience back in 1992. He was the "CHANGE" candidate then. I guess it was ok then but not now.


Presidential Debate - 11/11/92

Question I
Jim Lehrer: What do you believe tonight is the single most important separating issue of this campaign?

Bill Clinton: CLINTON: The most important distinction in this campaign is that I represent REAL HOPE FOR CHANGE, a departure from trickle-down economics, a departure from tax and spend economics, to invest in growth. But before I can do that, I must CHALLENGE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO CHANGE, and they must decide. Tonight I have to say to the President: Mr. Bush, for 12 years you've had it your way. You've had your chance and it didn't work. It's time to change. I want to bring that CHANGE to the American people. But we must all decide first we have the courage to CHANGE FOR HOPE and a better tomorrow.

Question II

Jim Lehrer: Governor Clinton, how do you respond to the President on the -- you have two minutes -- on the question of experience? He says that is what distinguishes him from the other two of you.

Bill Clinton: CLINTON: I believe EXPERIENCE counts, but IT'S NOT EVERYTHING. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something...Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined INSANITY as just doing the SAME OLD THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN and expecting a different result. We have got to have the COURAGE TO CHANGE...I think the American people deserve better than they're getting. We have gone from first to thirteenth in the world in the last twelve years, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan have been in. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder. In the last four years, there have been twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs created. We need a new approach. The same OLD EXPERIENCE IS NOT RELEVANT...a commitment to invest in American jobs and American education, controlling American HEALTH CARE COSTS, and bringing the American people together. That is what works. And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience.

------BACK TO ME--------

I guess it's only ok to have 12 years of experience when you are a Clinton. I guess it's ok to run on hope and change when you're are Clinton.

Today, you can't get away with it. There is data and archives available everywhere. When you are a funny, you will be discovered.

Posted by: comingawakening | February 4, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama's surge in recent weeks stands to reason. When people see him up close and consider his attributes carefully, they like him and view him as up to the job. Conversely, a significant number of Hillary's supporters are folks who aren't thrilled about supporting her, but feel they must in order to win in November. When those folks feel comfortable with Obama, they jump ship.

I also feel the "dream ticket" only works if Hillary has top billing. In that case, Obama brings a lot of positives to her candidacy. The same is not true for Obama. I doubt he gets additional support by virtue of her, and would likely lose support given how polarizing she is. He has no reason to take on the only person who can unite a fractured republican party.

Posted by: MShaughn | February 4, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Let's see one more day til Super Tuesday. I wonder which celebrity Obama is going to thrust in the country's face tomorrow? You don't hear McCain and Romney attacking Obama, they are attacking Hillary. Why? Because they already recognize that Obama is not a threat to the 08 election if he is the party's nominee. They are afraid Hillary will win the presidency in November.For far too long the most important position in the land has been left up to men it's time for a woman to be in charge. Women have shown through out the ages they can be entrusted with managing the most important unit of our lives, our families. Hillary can be entrusted with our nation!!!!Hillary 08

Posted by: edenz21 | February 4, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Hotnuke just craves attention and wants to provoke a response to his/her repetitive inappropriate remarks. I use "his/her" because, even though he/she foolishly included "his" name, address and phone number in a post earlier this week, there is no way of verifying that the information is truthful. The best thing to do is ignore him/her. He/she has been reported to the Post a number of times already, and hopefully some action will be taken. But if his/her posts are ignored by us and receive no reaction, then he/she will fade away.

Ironically, he/she has used the N-word on more than one occasion, and doesn't even realize that he/she more than embodies the true definition of the word.

I'm sure he/she will be spouting a new round of hateful venom after Tuesday's results are known and it becomes apparent that his/her "analysis" is severely flawed. Not to be unexpected, as small minds such as his/hers are unable to comprehend the larger reality to any great extent.

Posted by: bbussey | February 4, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

stevendcross's comment requires a response. Bill Clinton is not at fault for Gore's losing to Bush.Bill Clinton was extremely popular in the country in 2000, and Gore won by 500,000 votes. Gore was partly at fault for not restoring his base in his home state of Tennessee, losing those electoral votes. He also rejected Bill's help. But those who voted for Nader were at the greatest fault. Among the thousands of Naderites in Florida, at least a few hundred would have voted for Gore if Nader had butted out, and the vice president would have won Florida's electoral votes.

The Naderites were seduced by a siren's song of impassioned, but empty oratory. They were displeased with the regular Democrats whom they felt were all grimy and corrupt. The Naderites were deeply impressed with their own political morality and sagacity, and could not accept that anyone would have a legitimate, contrary political view. They selfishly voted for a guru who indulged their arrogance and cynicism. They confused their fantasies with reality, and delivered us over to George W. Bush.

I suspect many of them have returned now as Obama fans, as seduced and willingly misled as before.

Posted by: rblackbird | February 4, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I'm sensing some desperation from the Billary folks.

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 4, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Spread the word for Change:

Posted by: scrawner | February 4, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse


Excellent analysis and very relevant. Even though I think Obama is by far the best choice to begin to lead us out of the mess our country is in, he will definitely need some help from congress. As soon as the primary race is settled, we must all work to get reasonable, moderate legislators from both sides of the aisle elected.

We've got to swing the pendulum back from the far right, and hopefully learn how to keep it closer to the middle.

We will never get past the partisan wars until the "Moderate Majority" learns to ignore the extremes on both sides and agrees on some common ground. A perfect example is Hillary's health care proposal. She was actually proud of the fact that it will REQUIRE everyone to purchase health insurance. Huh??? Did she learn Nothing from her 1993 failure to reform health care? Does she really think that conservatives will willingly accept government mandates???? She accuses Obama of offering false hope, but what she offers has absolutely NO HOPE of being enacted.

By contrast, Obama thinks it is smarter to focus on AFFORDABLE health care but leave it up to the individual to make the final choice. It should be obvious which plan has a greater chance of success.

I think most Americans are sick of the incessant partisan bickering and desperately want a change. Obama is the first real hope we've had for a generation.

Hillary smugly says that it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take a Clinton to clean up after the second. But the obvious fallacy in that argument is that we would probably never have had a second Bush if not for the failures of the Clinton administration.

Posted by: stevendcross | February 3, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is the man for change! He will bring unity, hope, peace, and prosperity to this country!! Thank God we have a man like him running for president.

Posted by: juliegund | February 3, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Those who support him will not turn back. It is a movement. It comes from a hunger for the truth and a thirst for unity at last. If you watched the incredible Women for Obama rally in CA you know that Maria Shriver has endorsed him. She just basically showed up and decided, "You have to follow your own truth." She was amazingly articulate, honest, real and she said, "As CA goes, so goes the country." Obama is 1 point ahead in CA right now. Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy and Elena Delano, embodied the strength and breadth of this movement for change. I think people do not want to hedge their bets this time. I think they want to go for broke. I think they realize that this is a moment that will never come again and the excitement of possiblity is overpowering. Nobody really knows what will happen on Tuesday. But this thing that has started, the people demanding the truth, and transcending differences to achieve common goals, that is not going away. Update: Hil talked on the Sunday news programs today of garnishing wages to mandate healthcare. Carville said, "Everyone knew that the vote was a vote for the war. Anyone who says they didn't know is lying."

Posted by: anitapreer | February 3, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I agree, totally disgusted by notnuke's remarks. Referencing shoeshines and calling Michelle an ape should get him kicked off of this website, and Huffington Post too. Anyone who is that ignorant or blatantly racist does not deserve to have their opinions heard. Obama is offering a new vision for this country. Just think how the world will come to view us for electing a black man as our President, someone completely different who is actually willing to listen to the leaders of other countries and not just dismiss them as being inferior. Sure, Hillary will already know these people, but, they will also already know here and what her angle is. It will do nothing to boost our standing in the world if she is elected. As long as ignorant people such as hotnuke are not the majority in this country, the rest of us logical and open-minded people will realize that Obama is the LEADER we need not the next person to MANAGE our country (probably into even a worse spot than the current MANAGER we have has done). Wake up Hotnuke, you are a racist idiot and need some serious help.

Posted by: jbelding80 | February 3, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: nurseratchet | February 3, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse


A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For McCain
Hillary Clinton will not win against John McCain. She fires up the Republican base like no other person; they despise the Clintons. If she is the Democratic nominee, McCain will win.

Barack Obama doesn't generate this hatred from the Republican base; in fact, he attracts many Republican and Independent voters.

In a contest between Barack Obama and John McCain, Obama would win and become president.

So, Democrats (and Independent voters) really have this choice when they vote this Tuesday:

Who do you prefer to be our next president?

Barack Obama or John McCain?

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 3, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Just compare the numbers and ethics:
3 for HRC, two of them are racists or impolite, and one is midway. But no evidence, no research, and no logic. On the other hand 30 for BO asking for proof, logic, or evidences. They held the high moral grounds, except few. We started being affected by Barak Obama and behaving like him. I hope all Americans see those pictures and listen to him. I barely held my tears, he opened my heart after convincing my mind.
For the rest of us ignore the recists, vagular, and impolite and do not drop down to their levels. Pray for their guidance in your heart.

Posted by: Nabily | February 3, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey laboo: I am from Silver Spring also. I went with a group from MD to Delaware for the rally today. I was not aware of the SS rally. That's great! I will try to make the next one. BTW, the "Potomack Primary" is now taking on new significance. I suspect Obama will win in MD, DC and VA but we need to try to make it a knockout blow.

Posted by: zb95 | February 3, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

OK, I admit to being a little jealous of you folks at the huge rallies today. But we had our own little Obama rally in Silver Spring right on the corner of Colesville & Georgia, and you shoulda heard all the honking horns and shouts of encouragement.

This is the best campaign I've worked for since, oh, about '76. We Will, We Will Ba-Rack You!

Posted by: laboo | February 3, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Is someone monitoring this page? Please remove the resist remarks from hotnuke2008 off. It degrades the dialog.

Posted by: Sirack | February 3, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Can you imagine sweet justice? My definition would be tying Hotnuke to a chair, forcing his eyes open and making him watch Obamas inauguration, including all the pageantry.

Especially the Obamas first dance as President and First Lady.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 3, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Great pics rust1d. I was there too. You captured the feeling perfectly.

Posted by: zb95 | February 3, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I was there and took pictures - awesome rally, awesome. Click to see photos

Posted by: rust1d | February 3, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA is the man. Is this forum monitored? This idiot hotnuke is blatantly racist and a disgusting piece of garbage. Why aren't his posts deleted? his comments are DEFINITELY offensive and racists. calling candidates or their spouses apes or making references to shining shoes is ignoranr racist diatribe which has nothing to do with freedod of speech and whilst it may pass the litmus test among his other moronic friends in the tavern has no business on a board tailored to intellectual exchange of opinions.

Posted by: lroberts1 | February 3, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I was there today at this event. It was amazing. People of all ages, colors and classes were crammed in all over Rodney Square. Many were standing on top of anything available to get a better view, concrete planters, benches, port-a-potties (yes port-a-potties), buiding window ledges. It was quite a sight. Obama is indeed inspiring the masses.

Posted by: zb95 | February 3, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who prefer to think strategically instead of (or as well as) emotionally about this election, here are a few numbers based on facts instead of oxycontin-induced rage fantasies:

Alabama's African American population: 26.3%

Georgia's: 29.9%

Louisiana's: 31.7%

Mississippi's: 37.1%

North Carolina's: 21.7%

South Carolina's: 29.0%

Coincidentally, of these six Southern states where blacks make up more than 20 percent of the total population, five have Republican senators up for re-election this fall: Jeff Sessions (AL), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Thad Cochran (MS), Elizabeth Dole (NC) and Lindsay Graham (SC). Mary Landrieu (LA) is the lone Democratic senator up for re-election in these 20+ percent black Deep South states.

If you look at the larger picture for a moment, you can see that we're presented with a very unique situation: Five Senate seats that under normal circumstances would be considered very safe for the GOP incumbent could be put in play if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee this fall. Obama, after all, has demonstrated an obvious ability to electrify African American voters and get them to turn out in disproportionately high numbers.

If the astounding African American Democratic turnout in South Carolina is any indication, an Obama candidacy in the general election could well present a real threat to entrenched GOP Deep-South senators. Even if the Republicans were able to successfully defend all five of these seats, it would come at the cost of using precious resources that would otherwise be poured into other hotly contested races throughout the country. Howard Dean's 50-state strategy paid off in '06 even without presidential coattails to ride. With Obama actively campaigning throughout the South, firing up the black vote, we'd at least have the possibility of picking up a few seats in the Senate, and likely the House as well.

Just for grins and giggles, here's the breakdown of Republican and Democratic House members within those six 20-percent-plus black-populace states:

Alabama: 5 GOP, 2 Dem

Georgia: 7 GOP, 6 Dem

Louisiana: 5 GOP, 2 Dem

Mississippi: 2 GOP, 2 Dem

N. Carolina: 6 GOP, 13 Dem

S. Carolina: 4 GOP, 2 Dem

As you can see, of these six states, the GOP holds a majority of House seats in nearly all of them. However, if Obama runs and motivates a large number of African American voters to go to the polls, it's pretty obvious to me that some of these GOP seats would shift from safe to competitive, and at least a couple of them would switch hands. Again, the strain on GOP coffers from having to defend so many seats assumed to be uncontestable would mean fewer resources available to pour into other races throughout the country. An Obama candidacy will put the Republicans at a significant financial disadvantage, based on the scenario I've just laid out. Strategically, if you're a Democrat and want to defend and expand your Congressional majorities in the House and Senate, voting for Obama would seem to be the only logical move.

Now switch all this around and think of what happens in those same six states if Sen. Clinton becomes the Democratic candidate. African Americans who rightly or wrongly believe the Clintons played the race card to defeat Obama decide to stay at home (again), the GOP breathes a sigh of relief that it won't have as many competitive contests and can lavish greater spending on fewer races, Southern Republicans become energized at the prospect of being able to vote against their Public Enemy Number One and turn out in droves, and the Democrats go down to defeat and very likely lose their 1-seat majority in the Senate, and perhaps the House as well.

Like I said, if you're a Democrat, voting for Obama is a no-brainer. It's the only guaranteed winning move if you want to stay the majority party. But since we Dems have always been our own worst enemies, I still give Hillary an excellent chance of getting the nomination and losing everything for us.

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

People - don't forget he has to overcome 2.5 million early votes in California that would have been favoring Clinton - he's gotta get a BIG turnout in Cali.

Posted by: JayKay2 | February 3, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The big winner is the democratic party, I was getting worried by all the passion from the Clinton and Obama supporters going at each other, but after the Kodak moment, I know the big winner will still be a democrat.

But for now I stand with BO, America needs him

Posted by: FebM | February 3, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse


You are fit enough to shine my shoes either, may you can clean my dipers!!

Go Obama go!

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

I saw the LA rally today on tv and was brought to tears. My husband and I are going out Tuesday at 7am to drum up more votes. He believes in the people. Power to the people. We are tired of the divisiveness and are ready to take back our country.

Posted by: silvrmerle | February 3, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Susan9, your cocaine reference was a cheap shot. Easy to do. A quick hit and run without any substance. The difference between Senator Obama and others who have also lived long enough to have made mistakes in their lives is simple. Senator Obama admits his mistakes. Doesn't ask his family to spend money to hide them. Doesn't threaten his political enemies or sick attack dogs with organizational names like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to do his dirty work for him. Doesn't have his pals lie to get him out of jury duty to hide drunken driving convictions.
No, Senator Obama already told the story of his drug use. And guess what? I don't even know you and I wouuld venture to say you might have a few things in your past that you might not want to be made public.
I guess there are those of us who are so used to drive by verbal assaults, racist tactics, slash and burn character attacks, and cheap shots, that nothing anyone could say would inspire or motivate them. That's pretty sad. But, that is your right. So you go forth with your brand of politics, and the rest of us will seek a different motivation. Frankly after 8 years of the current administration, just out of sheer exhaustion, I hope people don't follow your lead.

Posted by: caroletroll | February 3, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse


You reinforced the widely-held belief that peeps from Staten Island are racist and very ignorant.

Chime on.

Posted by: praiacaramel | February 3, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

This race is coming down to those with optimism, hope, faith in America, and a positive attitude -against those who are cynical, partisan, disillusioned, and negative.


Posted by: julieds | February 3, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

hotnuke2008/Mark Penn
Are you out of your mind?
Hillary won NH by fake-crying her way to a slim victory, stole Nevada, and got blown out in S.C.. Are you stupid?

Posted by: ednyo2000 | February 3, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Geez, I thought hotnuke was an anomaly, but with Susan9's cocaine comment, it seems clear, Hillary's supporters are just as nasty and cutthroat as she is.

Posted by: julieds | February 3, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Looks like HotNukes hot air is at it again. Hillary wins, the DEM party splits. She is a devisive person and cannot beat McCain or Romney. As for the Super Delegates it boils down to how many owe support to Clinton and how many owe support to Ted Kennedy. I believe the Kennedy clan still controls the DEM party, contrary to what the Clinton machine would like to believe. A brokered convention is where we are headed folks. The big question is will the DEM party stay with the old or follow the people and begin anew?

Posted by: frillymail1017 | February 3, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

What are these people talking about? They don't even know what kind of change they're talking about. Did Obama share some of his cocaine? Change can be made by someone who understands how to work within a system and who has proven, based on her record, that she can make significant change. Talk is just talk. Lots of young people in a stadium doesn't impact DC politics - it's just fun and trendy. These people are going to go back to their lives, and if Obama is elected, continue to be ashamed of their incompetent President as they were for the last 8 years. Clinton '08 - the candidate of substance.

Posted by: Susan9 | February 3, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary camp is getting desperate. They're using dirty tricks like push-polling now...

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 3, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Hey, everybody! Take a deep breath. Nobody knows how this will all turn out.

One thing is undeniable, though: the polling trend since SC is in Obama's favor. The national poll is essentially tied, he has passed Hillary in CT and closed within 1 in NJ and MO and 2 in AZ, and the last three polls from CA have him leading there.

Something is definitely happening out there and, as Carville said on MTP this morning, if Hillary loses CA - which could happen - it's going to be "very bad" for her. If that does happen, then watch the so-called "super-delegates" start lining up for Obama.

Posted by: jac13 | February 3, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Hotnuke has always been nothing more than a mass of raging blind hatred in search of a target. He's plainly an obscenity-spewing racist and deserving of nothing more than scorn and pity. I don't associate him with any other Hillary democrats here since it's obvious that his "democratic" self-identification is a product of geography rather than conviction--if he lived in Alabama he'd be a registered Republican with the same ig'nant redneck attitude.

But, on the positive side, at least as long as he's indoors sitting in front of his computer lashing out at the world, the kids in his neighborhood can play outside safely. LOL

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

I was at the UCLA rally today which wasn't even Obama and there were about 9000 people there.

For those of you who don't live in CA, you have no idea the tidal wave that is building.

History is about to be made.

And this is just the beginning, folks.

Posted by: Caliguy75 | February 3, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

He's got to contrast with Hillary on something. Lots of folks are too dumb to see the differences between the two by themselves. He's got work to do to stay in the race beyond Tuesday.

Posted by: parkerfl | February 3, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse


at first i just thought your prediction was insane. then you posted racist trash and i realized that you are also insane.

anywho...Obama is on a roll. Way too much momentum right now. HRC can push-poll until she's blue in the face but she's trapped.

Fineman said this would either be close or Obama would run away with it. looks like obama is running away with it.

HRC campaign reminds me of a basketball team that's lost its legs late in the game. they are hoping for the clock to wind down.

Posted by: atadam | February 3, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Um... yeah. I thought racists were also usually sexist, but apparently that's not a perfect rule. Or maybe racism just trumps sexism. Nice to see that HRC's support includes the likes of those either racist or stupid enough to use such inappropriate language when referring to an African American woman.

That comment should be removed (7:20 - HotNuke) not only for the language, but also because hopefully the Post would not allow such disgusting sentiments in a forum on its site?

Free speech is one thing, but the Post is not obligated to print KKK manifestos, and they shouldn't be obligated to allow this post either.

And Hotnuke, I can't wait for an America where people like you have finally become completely marginalized. But... we are already on our way there, albeit slowly.

See you in the poor house next time I donate my old clothes! Hopefully I won't see the place you're headed after that.

Posted by: troublesleeping | February 3, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

hotnuke is just an idiot who keeps posting here. Where did he get his numbers? the dude is doing his own polls...laughable.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 3, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Hotnuke2008, Wednesday when your figures are proven to be totally wrong, how will you post then?

I believe there are going to be some suprises on Super Duper Tuesday.

Posted by: keanwa | February 3, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse




Posted by: kuku11 | February 3, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

There's only one flaw in hotnuke2008's argument: superdelegates are unpledged and therefore free to change sides. So if Obama does as well on Tuesday as hotnuke2008 seems to think, then many of those superdelegates will swing behind Obama, because they'll see he's the one with momentum to take the remaining states. All these guys are political pros - they don't want to be on the losing side.

Posted by: mjo1 | February 3, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the commenter at 7:31 about the comment at 7:20 by "hotnuke2008". It should be removed as being offensive, using profanity (disguised in a spelling "error").

Thank you.

Posted by: jade_7243 | February 3, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse


You gave away any power behind your words with your ignorant comments. Take a path of less hatred...

Posted by: moribajah | February 3, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

It is ironic that the Washington establishment that HRC is being accused of being a part of is almost entirely behind BHO.

Folks have been dancing on her grave since Iowa and she is still alive. As Yogi Berra would say, "it ain't over 'til it's over."

Posted by: LadyEagle | February 3, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Whomever is is monitoring this blog, the 7:20 entry by apparent Clinton supporter hotnuke2008 is clearly racist. Please delete.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"Hot Nuke"- maybe if you shared with us how you came up with this supendous prediction, there'd be a reason to take it seriously. While I put no stock in the polls now that we're this close to Super Tuesday (to call the situation 'fluid' is understatement), but I they have more credulity than what you've minded from your posterior.

Posted by: japhygrant | February 3, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's going down. Her husband has spewed enough racist garbage to fill the Klan's dumpsters for years to come, and people are on to him. We expect Republicans to be racist. But it's unacceptable from a Democratic former President who has always pretended that he liked black people. Likes them when it suits his purposes, but that's it.

Hillary's supporters are abandoning her campaign in droves. They're all over on the Obama side, the side of hope, the side of the future, the side of positive and collaborative ideas for the future.

Just look at Hillary's supporters, and how bizarre they are behaving. Hillary's going down, and they know it. NOW sending shreaking hysterical attacks out against the most progressive Democrat in the Senate, accusing him of being sexist because he endorsed Obama? Getting their surrogates to send out vicious libelous e-mails telling the world Obama is a Muslim, he's a terrorist.

And we're just beginning to have people wake up to the fact that Bill Clinton is as crooked as they come. The NYT's article last week about Bill peddling influence in Central Asia for massive bribes should make every American sick. People were outraged that Reagan made a speech in Japan for $2.0 million? Well Bill Clinton got $100 million for peddling his ass in Central Asia to help some mine owner. There's lots more to come.

Hillary's going down. People are sick of corruption. Oddly, Hillary is the male figure (loves war, adversarial, can't see any further than just being tough and trying to come up with clever put-downs). And Obama is taking the female role, the one we women have been promoting for years: sensitive, collaborative, cooperative, inclusive, united rather than divided, seeking the betterment of all instead of the destruction of many.

Hillary's going down. If the Clintons try to steal the nomination by bribing politicians (the "Super" delegates), the convention will be torn apart and 1968 will be just a footnote.

Did you see the crowd at UCLA? GirlPower, all grown up. Oprah, Michelle, Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy, telling all the people in California that they don't have to vote for Hillary, that we are free people, we can choose and make the better choice. United, together. Powerful. Hillary's going down.

Posted by: Butter7 | February 3, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I dunno what kind of psychotropic substances they're slipping into the drinking water up in Staten Island, hotnuke, but you should bottle it and sell it, 'cause you're tripping pretty heavily with your figures there. Obama will take a majority of the delegates in at least 8 states at this point, including Delaware, Idaho and Alabama as well as Georgia and Illinois, and California, New Jersey and Connecticut are tightening up as we speak. (By the way, wasn't it great to see Maria Shriver join Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah at UCLA to give Obama her surprise endorsement? Man, I loved that!) I hope you don't work in statistical analysis for a living, or you'll soon be out working a shoeshine stand yourself. Barring a major blowout in California due to high absentee voting that would skew heavily towrd Clinton, Obama should be slightly ahead in the overall delegate count Wednesday morning.

Posted by: whatmeregister | February 3, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

As a life-long liberal Democrat, my memory of the Clinton years is of a President who was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath and for having sex with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office while conducting official business on the phone. Moreover, the Democrats lost control of Congress under Clinton, and the National Democratic Party was left in great disarray which partially lead to Gore losing in 2000.

This is the Clinton legacy that Hillary is touting. If nominated, she will likely lose in November. We do not want another eight years of Neo-con Republican rule.

Posted by: Munir1 | February 3, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company