Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Says Iraq Surge Hasn't Accomplished Goals


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) delivers a speech on Iraq at George Washington University, March 17, 2008. (Getty Images.)

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq over the last year has "not accomplished its goals" in a speech this morning touting her plans to end the war in Iraq and criticizing the war positions of President Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama.

"By the middle of this summer, when the additional surge forces have been sent home, we'll be right back at square one: 130,000 or more troops on the ground in Iraq," Clinton said in the speech, given at George Washington University on the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Clinton started her presidential campaign unwilling to apologize for her vote to authorize the war in 2002, and last fall both Clinton and Obama said the surge of troops in Iraq had helped to reduce violence there -- a fact Clinton noted again in her speech today. But the New York senator has also shifted towards embracing a withdrawal of 1-2 brigades of troops each month from Iraq as soon as she is president, offering sharper critiques of the war and suggesting the invasion was a mistake.

Continuing a theme that has defined her recent rhetoric, Clinton suggested Obama's war opposition in 2002 was only rhetorical, as the two senators have had very similar records on the war once in the Senate, supporting funding for the war and opposing bills that called for timetables for withdrawal until early 2007, when they started running for president.

"My Democratic opponent talks a great deal about a speech he gave in 2002, and I commend him for making that speech," Clinton said. "He is asking us to judge him by his words, and words can be powerful -- but only if the speaker translates them into actions and solutions. ... He didn't start working aggressively to end the war until he started to run for president."

Obama, of course, argues that the war would never have started had Clinton and other Democrats in Congress followed the logic of the Illinois Senator, who in his 2002 speech laying out why he opposed the war predicted the conflict in Iraq would be long and difficult to win.

Zeroing in on her potential opponent in general election, McCain, Clinton described the "Bush-McCain Iraq philosophy" as "stay the course keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary.

"Withdrawal is not defeat, defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years," Clinton said.

Earlier in the campaign, Senator McCain likened Iraq to places like South Korea, where U.S. troops have been for decades, arguing Americans are more focused on the level of casualties than how long a U.S. presence remains there.

"He was speaking of a post-war scenario, not a hundred-year war," a McCain spokesman said in a statement.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 17, 2008; 11:59 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: College Journalists Interview Bill Clinton
Next: Bill Clinton Pushes Back Against Critics

Comments

Martinedwinandersen, thanks for the post. I forwarded you message to another blog about Barack.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 18, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

To pressure the Clintons to release their records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation), the site http://www.thepetitionsite.com can be used to set an online petition. (the e-mail adresses can serve as signatures).

If sometone sets a petition to request the Clintons to release their records, I will gladly sign it.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 18, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

THE HUFFINGTON POST IS REPORTING ...

Obama Prepares For Full Assault On Clinton's Ethics

The Chicago Tribune reports that Barack Obama's is pushing this week for greater transparency in his campaign as part of a plan to launch a head-on attack against his opponent Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Barack Obama is trying to air his dirty laundry -- even some items that might appear just a little wrinkled -- as he prepares a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency.

On Saturday he invoked Robert F. Kennedy as he continued to try to distance himself from controversial statements made by his former Chicago pastor that are circulating on the Internet.

With a gap between campaign contests, Obama is trying to unload controversies. On Friday he held extended conversations with the Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times about his longtime relationship with indicted developer and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

The Illinois Democrat is also expected to make public his tax returns for several years before 2006, documents he previously has provided to the Tribune and other news organizations.

The plan seems to be yielding dividends, if the Tribune is to be believed. After sitting with the papers editorial board to answer every question asked about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago Tribune had this to say:

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.
We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened....
...Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail.

That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
________________________________________

ALSO ON THE HUFFINGTON POST ...

Arianna Huffington:

On Clinton's Tax Returns, a "Frankly Disturbing" Lack of Transparency, and Surrogate-ancholy

The Clintons have done very well during the Bush years -- well enough that she was able to loan her campaign $5 million at a critical moment.

Is it really "imitating Ken Starr" to want to see her tax returns so we can know where that money came from -- and have them "vetted" now by Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads?

Or to ask for a list of the donors who have contributed $500 million to her husband's library?

Or to ask what her policy as president would be regarding the transparency of huge donations from foreign interests to her husband's charitable fund (such as the $31.3 million donation to Bill Clinton's foundation after he helped a Canadian mining mogul secure a massive uranium deal with Kazakhstan)?
_______________________________________

NOTE: AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THE PARTY OF CHANGE CANNOT BE A PARTY TO CORRUPTION.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY IS THE CORNERSTONE TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

TIME TO RESTORE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO ITS PRE-CLINTON STANDARD OF ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 18, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Hillary claims to have the experience to be commander in chief while Barack does not. But where are her White House records to support this? Hillary is not cooperating to get these records released (neither her tax returns or the list of big donors to the Clintons' foundation).

And this is where I have a problem with her being the commander in chief... She is taking credit for things done in the '90s without records to support this. And some facts seem to show that the Clintons are ready to violate the U.S. foreign policies for personnal gains. For example, the Clinton's foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/pol...ref=slogin ).

And there are all the other charges linked to the Clintons in the '90s and that do not sit well with the position of commander in chief:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

I see a pattern between these past charges and the current refusal of Hillary to release her records (White House records, tax returns, list of big donors to their foundation, ...).

What type of commander in chief would Hillary be if she would have to spend must of her time in court during her administration in order to respond to new charges.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 18, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was ready to send the troops in Irak when the idea of a war was popular. Now that the war is no longer popular, she wants them back. She should stop thinking with polls and find her own voice. But this would probably be difficult since she also seems to have multiple personnalities as we saw on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 17, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

bill.reese --

Its all going to be over in a few days, anyway.

Obama will drop out. Mark my words.

He's lost the wite male vote completely and probably the white female vote as well.

Without white people voting for him, I don't think Obama is going to have much of a chance.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

In comments to White Male Vote Especially Critical,
svreader wrote:
gbooksdc --

You've just bought yourself a lawsuit.

You'll find out just how real I am.
3/17/2008 10:56:23 PM
____________________________________________

Res ipsa loquitur.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

bill.reese:

With all due respect, when svliar says he's read galleys of a book that provably doesn't exist -- not to mention gets key details of his story flat out wrong (and I should know) -- that's not a PERSONAL attack. That's exposing a liar. That's no more "personal" than pointing out that Nixon was a crook.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

WOW, I walk away from this article long enough to drive home and eat dinner....and missed all the drama.

Guys,
This is not the place for personal attacking OR defending. If it's inapproriate, just report it. I admit it's hard to stay on subject with these blog articles, but let's keep it civilized, please?

svreader,
I'm not suggesting you leave, but I've found that ABCnews.com is VERY pro-Clinton; perhaps you would find some part-time relief from us 'Obama Cultists'.

Posted by: datacus | March 17, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You have no clue about how books are published today.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 09:36 PM
_______________________________________

Actually, I do. I particularly know how hardcovers and trade paperbacks are manufactured. But I've pointed out the holes in your latest lie. No author + no publisher = no book. (Pamphlets out of Kinko's don't count.)

So, to recap:

says he's a Jew but spells "kaddish" like a goy

says he's a CEO, but blogs _all day_, every day, seven days a week

says he's a Ph.D., but got the details of his degree wrong

says he's a millionarie, but won't flash the cash

says everyone died in the Holocaust, except Grampy, who got out before hand (by the third telling of the story)

says he's read a book in galleys -- that's still being edited -- that has no author or publisher he's able to name

I could go on, but you get the picture.

svrewader. svliar. Fake. Same difference.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You have no clue about how books are published today.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Obama's finished, as he should be.

Its over. Thank God."

Uh huh. Better go say Kadish for him, I guess. LOL

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

Nope. Wrong answer.

a book in galleys is a book ready to go to press. Printing presses are big metal objects. I've visited a couple. Ever hear of R.R. Donnelley ? You do not edit in galleys. Galleys are for looking at broken type and other flaws. They are not "writing" or "editing" the book, because that would mean a whole new set of plates. Plates are expensive and publishing, particularly non-fiction, is a low margin business. Furthermore -- if you had to do a whole new set of plates, you'd miss your press time -- which is scheduled months in advance. So you'd miss your release date. Which means your publicity plans would be -- poof! -- gone! Bookstores would cancel their orders.

You happen to have lied right into my wheelhouse, you lying scum.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Fellow Readers --

Why do Obama supporters go to such extreme lengths to surpress any information that conflicts with Obama's carefully crafted public image?

Why do they viciously attack any person who posts anything that shows that their emperor has no clothes?

They tell us to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

For our own sakes, and that of our children and our world, we must.

Obama is the great OZ. A tempest in a teapot.

They cult of Obama, like all cults of personality, is full of sound and fury, but, in reality, signifies nothing.

Like all cults, they use enforcers and "thugs" to supress anything that threatens their carefully crafted public image.

Their actions, and their tactics, speak for themselves.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

No. All it means in this day and age is parts of a book in page-layout form.

You have no right to demand anything from me or anyone else.

As far as the person who says "Obama is ahead"

Grow up.

Obama's finished, as he should be.

Its over. Thank God.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Its reasonable to draw attention to the actions of supporters of a candidate because it shows how the really act, rather than how they claim to act."

So, using you as an example, we can conclude that Hillary is a liar who makes up unfounded charges about someone being a Muslim and a drug dealer and a cult leader who seduces his female students. Oh, and I suppose she likes to claim she's an orphaned Jew too?

Ohhhhhkayyyyyy then. Why anyone ever vote for such a person is a total mystery. Meshugas, in fact.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

The book isn't finished.

The people writing it are still working on it, writing, editing, and choosing which photographs to include.

The facts are already in the public domain.

I've posted articles and videos from highly regarded newspapers and TV stations that lay out the essential facts of the situation.


Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 09:00 PM
_______________________________________

svliar --

STOP. LYING.

A book on galleys is ready to go to press. Press time is extremely expensive.

Tell you what, liar, give us the name of the author and the publishing house.

We'll wait.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Having said all that, I'm glad Obama will soon drop out of the race."

Ahhhh, NOW I understand why you've been writing what you have. All the blood has been rushing to your head because you've been standing on it. See, in the rightside-up world, Obama is AHEAD in the popular vote, the number of states won, the number of pledged delegates and the number of total delegates. He's... ummmm, how do I put this?... the FRONTRUNNER. Hillary can't catch him at this point. LOL

But at least we've identified the source of your problem in comprehending reality. That's something, right?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister --

You miss the point.

Its reasonable to draw attention to the actions of supporters of a candidate because it shows how the really act, rather than how they claim to act.

Obama supporters can, and do, call clinton supporters, as a group, all sorts of names.

What's wrong is to attack another reader to try to supress their right to freedom of speech.

That's what Obama supporters do to Clinton supporters.

I have absolutely no idea why the Washington Post lets them get away with it.

I believe it is a clear sign of pro-Obama, anti Clinton bias on the part of the Washington Post, and I believe that its so deeply seated that they don't even realize it.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister --

I rarely post the same thing except in response to objections by Obama supporters.

Obama supporters try to dominate these boards.

Clinton supporters have a right to exprees their views too.

Having said all that, I'm glad Obama will soon drop out of the race.

His supporters are way, way, too pushy.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "What you can't do try to force another reader off the board by attacking them personally, and that's what Obama's supporters do to Clinton's supporters."

You want an end to personal attacks, right? So you'll stop using them to disparage Obama posters? You'll cease using derogatory terms like "cultists" and "blind fools" and the like?

I doubt it. Why not just admit that you're a total hypocrite?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Another trick Obama supporter use when they don't want other readers to see posts that are negative about Obama is to rapidly do lots of posts to drive the negative information off the screen.

The ONLY way to ensure that the information they drove off the screen is seen is to re-post it.

That's another good reason to re-post."

It's this kind of "logic" that makes these comment boards so d*mned long. If what you claim were remotely true, then EVERYONE should be reposting their comments over and over again so that they won't be overlooked in the massive number of posts here. And all too often, some of them do just that. You seem to think that your comments are somehow worthy of special attention because they're just so incredibly insightful, or profound, or...

Sorry, I just couldn't stop laughing long enough to finish that sentence. The point is, again, when you keep reposting the same thing over and over, you're not being informative. You're just being an inconsiderate spammer. Stop trying to convince yourself otherwise.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister --

Give us a break, fella.

Obama's supporters have called Hillary Clinton and her family every name in the book and them some.

What you can't do try to force another reader off the board by attacking them personally, and that's what Obama's supporters do to Clinton's supporters.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

The book isn't finished.

The people writing it are still working on it, writing, editing, and choosing which photographs to include.

The facts are already in the public domain.

I've posted articles and videos from highly regarded newspapers and TV stations that lay out the essential facts of the situation.


Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "Everyone's allowed to their opinion about the candidates."

True.

svreader: 'Obama supporters viciously attack the people who post ideas different than their own."

So do Hillary supporters. And frankly, I've seen far more personal attacks by you asuch as the ones which I've already detailed above. If you want to have your right to post here respected, then show some respect for our choice instead of constantly tearing us down as unintelligent cultists. We believe Obama is the better candidate based not on some misguided "messiah worship" but on his qualifications: integrity, temperament, a knowledge of and respect for the Constitution, an ability to bring together disparate groups, and intelligence, among others.

If you disagree, so be it. I respect your right to make a different choice than my own, and I don't generally label those who differ from me as lacking in brains or being naive and gullible even when I think their preference is a plainly inferior one. You, however, exercise no such similar restraint, and that lack of scruples is what leads to your being taken to task for your gutter tactics. You're allegedly at least ten years older than me, so why can't you act like an adult?

And that lack of manners includes the vicious and gratuitous slams posted here by you and other Hillary folks--"closet Muslim," "drug dealer," "cult leader," all of which are plainly false, and all posted in the past by you, among others. You know these are lies, and yet you spam the boards with them day in and day out. Why resort to such blatant dishonesty? Why are you so desperate to win that you throw away any semblance of self-respect?

svreader: "You can't attack the other people who post in an attempt to silence them."

So why do you keep doing it?

svreader: "We alll have the right to free speech."

With every right comes attendant responsibilities. When you post half-truths, rumors, and outright lies you're abusing your right of free speech, so don't be so indignant when you're called on it, goyim.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

There is nothing wrong with a reader posting information they have previously posted.

Its often useful and necessary to respond to another readers direct challange, which Obama's supporters do to anything negative about Obama.

Its often necessary when an Obama supporter issues the same challange to the same person on multiple boards.


That's not what SPAM is, and you know it.

SPAM refers to information meant to sell goods or services.

Another trick Obama supporter use when they don't want other readers to see posts that are negative about Obama is to rapidly do lots of posts to drive the negative information off the screen.

The ONLY way to ensure that the information they drove off the screen is seen is to re-post it.

That's another good reason to re-post.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

bill.resse --

There's a book coming out called "Obama's Slums"

I've seen some of the "galleys" ...

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 07:07 PM
________________________________________

This is a reprint of a lie svliar told last Friday. Unfortunately for him, I know a little something about the publishing business. Like, books are sold out of "catalogs". Booksellers order them in advance. When you are in "galleys", you are close to publication. Which means you will have your publicity plans in place.

So how come you can't find "Obama's Slums" if you Google it?

Because there is no such book. No publisher would publish a book without even a press release to announce it. svliar is lying again ...

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

svliar --

the funny thing is, even as you defend your right to spam, your defense itself a spam of a comment you posted to Bob Novak's column.

I won't bore readers here with a response I already made to THAT post. Readers here appear to be a little more sophisticated. I think I've made my point. Besides, your posting the same thing 110 times indicts you far more thoroughly than I might ever hope.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

STOP.

Its clear all you're trying to do is supress my right to free speech by driving me off these boards.

There is no rule against a reader re-posting something they have previously posted.

The only reason I re-post is that Obama supporters deny what I previously posted and demand that I post proof, so I do.

You intentionally missuse the term "spam"

Spam refers to posting of advertising for goods or services.

It has nothing to do with posting of previously posted material, which is often both useful and necessary.

This board is to discuss the election.

Not for you to viciously attack me.

Its clear all you want to do is tie me up so I can't post about the election.

You are in direct violation of Washington Post rules!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

The entire european branch of my family, every man, woman, and child, was wiped out by the Nazis.

My grandfather escaped being killed because he had moved to America before the Nazis took power. ...

Its clear all you want to do is tie me up so I can't post about the election.
__________________________________________

That's what you say now. That wasn't your story THEN. So you've changed your story, because the original didn't hold up.

And as for tying you up, as I've posted numerous times before, "People ought to be able to put your (lying) posts into perspective -- which is you tell lies about yourself and anyone/anything else to defend your spam posts. That's why I post about you -- which are generally your OWN words, analyzed. it's not my fault you can't keep your story straight." You've posted -- unapologetically -- essentially the same post 110 times. Not only are you a nut, you're a paranoid nut to boot.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

The entire european branch of my family, every man, woman, and child, was wiped out by the Nazis.

My grandfather escaped being killed because he had moved to America before the Nazis took power.

Way before.

I'm doing my best to avoid giving you too much personal information because you're acting like a nut.

GO AWAY.

This board is to discuss the election.

Not for you to viciously attack me.

Its clear all you want to do is tie me up so I can't post about the election.

You are in direct violation of Washington Post rules!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Since your memory is conveniently deficient, svliar, let me reprint the thread in relevant detail:

____________________________________

K --

I'm Jewish.

Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis. ...

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:18 PM
____________________________________


"Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis."

Um ... did the stork bring you then, or what? Think about it.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 05:25 PM

bondjedi --

No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped. ...

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:34 PM
____________________________________

PPS "Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis" is inconsistent with "only my grandfather escaped." No one who'd had only their grandfather escape yould have said EVERYONE was killed.

Also, if your grandfather escaped -- say at 40 in 1945, that puts your birth year around 1965 (20 yr old dad). Which means you were 3 when Dr. King was shot. Kind of hard for him to have been your hero, eh?

Tell the truth, sv. it's the easiest story to remember.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 05:57 PM
____________________________________

"No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped."

You said everyone was killed, but now your grandfather escaped. Get your story straight. You're a fraud and a liar who has crossed the line by supporting your BS with make-believe Holocaust victims.

Take your BS back to the Columbus dailies. All: svreader was outed here yesterday as writing the same sort of drivel, only in support of Obama and against HRC, contrary to what it spews here.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 06:27 PM
____________________________________

Sooo ... over an hour and no mention of "Grampy got out before things got bad". No mention of THAT at all -- until I pointed out that the numbers didn't add up.

Get it straight, svliar. I don't care what you say. I know you're lying, and so does everyone else. But to lie about the HOLOCAUST ... despicable.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister --

Everyone's allowed to their opinion about the candidates.

Obama supporters viciously attack the people who post ideas different than their own.

That's what against the rules.

You can say anything you want about the candidates, and even the post itself.

You can't attack the other people who post in an attempt to silence them.

This is America.

We alll have the right to free speech.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY RELIGION, YOU TWIT!!!"

That's incredibly (though unintentionally) funny, seeing as how you constantly refer to Obama supporters as "cultists." At least Barack supporters make no claim to a religious attachment, whereas you claim one (to Judaism) that you've just proven false.

svreader: "Nobody has the right to attack other readers who post."

See my comments about your insulting dismissal of Obama supporters as "cultists," above. Also refer back to your previous disparagements of posters as being "blind fools," "gullible," "reverse racists," "sexist," etc. Hmmm, is calling another poster a shameless, serial hypocrite considered an "attack"? As someone already said, the truth is an absolute defense. LOL

svreader: "Stop Harrasing me!!!"

You first.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

the reason we're still talking as if the failed clinton candidacy is viable? the press wants us to keep clicking and reading w/baited breath!!

Posted by: maq1 | March 17, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

I was born in the 1950's.

Dr. King died April 4 1968.

Do the math.

Then stop bothering me and other posters.

We have just as much right to post as you do.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

More news-

They were playing the Preacher Man tapes to Obama supporters - 25 percent switched after they heard or saw the tapes.

That is way Obama is talking on Tuesday.

If he can get out of this one that would be a great political feet. So far So bad.

Posted by: mul | March 17, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

Read what I posted.

He escaped being killed by the Nazi's because he was already here in the US.

Stop libeling me.

Its clear you're just trying to throw up a smoke screen to supress negative information about your candidate.

Its not going to work.

I have no idea why the Washington Post allows you to do this to other readers.

Its against all the rules.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I see I should've read ahead. I'm not the only one who noticed the, errr, "discrepancy" in svreader's faux Jewishness. Funny too that only the Obama supporters were observant enough (no pun intended) to notice. ;-)

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "For anyone who doubts I'm Jewish, I can only say that the soonner someone gbooksdc is eligible for someone to say 'kadish' for him, the better, and you'll know what I mean."

The word "kaddish" is spelled with two d's. Any Jew knows this.

How many other things have you lied about? Just today would be fine. (Because a complete list would max out WaPo's server capacity, I'm sure.)

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You must have an incredibly low IQ, fella.
____________________________________________

But I'm bright enough to know it's spelled "kaddish".

And I know it's "hardship" not "heartship".

Here's where you tripped up, svliar: you could have claimed, it's sometimes spelled "kadish" (although, in my Hasidic neighborhood, I never saw it spelled thusly). OR you could have claimed it's a typo. But you claimed BOTH. Because you didn't really know. Because you are LYING. (again). Just like you tripped up with grampy. Grampy didn't "escape" (a Holocaust that hadn't started yet) until I pointed out that, if Grampy HAD escaped the Holocaust, you'd have been no more than 3 when Dr. King -- someone you claim to have FOLLOWED -- was killed. Then, all of the sudden, it was convenient for Grampy to have never been caught up a Holocaust that, a few minutes before, he'd "escaped" from.

Once again, svliar, YOUR WORDS:

No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:34 PM

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You must have an incredibly low IQ, fella.
You read way too much into things like typos.

You are an idiot and you have no right to attack me or anyone else on these boards.

Kaddish is a trans-literation. The original prayer is in Aramaic.

You can spell it with one d or two, and I make lots of typos as everyone on these boards knows.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY RELIGION, YOU TWIT!!!

The Washington Post can police their own boards.

People on these boards are free to criticise the candidates and even the post itself.

Nobody has the right to attack other readers who post.

Stop Harrasing me!!!

Nobody appointed you God!!!

GO AWAY!!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

*completely

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

The more lies you tell, svliar, the more you get tripped up. And since your lies are contained in your post, discussing your lies _IS_ discussing your posts, and thus, compleetly relevant.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:
Fellow Readers --
...For anyone who doubts I'm Jewish, I can only say that the soonner someone gbooksdc is eligible for someone to say "kadish" for him, the better, and you'll know what I mean.
_________________________________________

I dare question your religion, you liar, because no Jew would get "kaddish" wrong. Not only are you NOT a Jew, you don't even get out much.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc --

You must have an incredibly low IQ, fella.
You read way too much into things.

My grandfather was the only one who escaped being killed because he was already here.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY RELIGION, YOU TWIT!!!

The Washington Post can police their own boards.

People on these boards are free to criticise the candidates and even the post itself.

Nobody has the right to attack other readers who post.

Stop Harrasing me!!!

Nobody appointed you God!!!

GO AWAY!!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh -- and this just in, svliar -- you know, the Jew who lost his family in the Holocaust -- can't even spell "kaddish".

And stop with the "it was a typo" you liar. NO Jew would misspell kaddish.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc viciously attacks anyone who posts anything critical of Barry Obama.

>>Name one**. Go on, I double dog dare you. All my comments can be accessed, find one. Beeyatch.

** other than svreader, that is. On him, I just tell the truth and he THINKS it's a vicious attack.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc viciously attacks anyone who posts anything critical of Barry Obama.

>>Name one. Go on, I double dog dare you. All my comments can be accessed, find one. Beeyatch.

gbooks has repeatedly slandered me.

>>Liar. Truth's a defense.

gbooksdc should have been thrown off for violating post rules long ago.

>>Since you've cited me to wapo.com, and they let me continue to post (facts about the inconsistencies in the various stories you've told), ipso facto, I'm not violating WaPo.com rules. Why don't call your daddy and grampy to come beat me up, little man!

As far as the time I spend posting here, much of it is to respond to personal attacks from Obama supporters like gbooksdc.

>>I did not sign on to WaPo.com between approximately 1AM Saturday morning and this afternoon. You've posted approximately 160 times during that period. While you like to attack "Obama supporters" in general, very few of those posts (near as I can tell) are specific responses to individual posters.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 07:15 PM
____________________________________________________

STOP LYING, SVLIAR. And WaPo posters, don't feed the troll.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Fellow Readers --

What gbooksdc refers to is that I said "all my family in europe was wiped out"

Most people are smart enough to realize that I meant that the entire european branch of my family was wiped out.

My grandfather was already here. ...

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 07:12 PM
_________________________________________

bondjedi --

No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:34 PM
_________________________________________

"Escaped" If your grampy was already here, what did he escape, svliar?

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

gbooksdc viciously attacks anyone who posts anything critical of Barry Obama.

gbooks has repeatedly slandered me.

gbooksdc should have been thrown off for violating post rules long ago.

As far as the time I spend posting here, much of it is to respond to personal attacks from Obama supporters like gbooksdc.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Fellow Readers --

What gbooksdc refers to is that I said "all my family in europe was wiped out"

Most people are smart enough to realize that I meant that the entire european branch of my family was wiped out.

My grandfather was already here.

My father was born here, as was I.

For anyone who doubts I'm Jewish, I can only say that the soonner someone gbooksdc is eligible for someone to say "kadish" for him, the better, and you'll know what I mean.

As far as being a Ph.D. --

Here's some proof for anyone on these boards foolish enough to fall for gbooksdc's character attacks.

Comment on: Comments: Emily Yoffe - Gloom and Doom in A Sunny Day - washingtonpost.com at 6/25/2007 6:48 PM EDT

The climate system is described by large coupled sets of non-linear partial differential equations. The physical processes involved are now quite well understood and have been verified by extensive measurements that track from the present day back to the last ice age.

The mathematical models s used in climate modeling and the numerical methods used to solve them are extremely impressive. The equations being solved are formally known as stiff systems of non-linear partial differential equations. The numerical methods used to solve them are truely state-of-the-art, much better than we had even a few years ago and the actual siimulations are don on the fastest massively parallel supercomputers we have, giving results that are extremely detailed in both space and time. We get very clear pictures and can see what happens, instant by instant, over very long stretches of time.

We have lots of reasons to be confident in the results we get, because as we decrease the mesh size, and look at things in more detail, the picture becomes clearer but doesn't change in its fundemental nature.

When you see the results, its like seeing a tumor on a CT scan or MRI.

Our planet has a cancer, but its not yet a death sentence.

Its not going to go away.

We still have a chance to beat this thing, but we have to begin treatment.

The sooner we start treating it, the less painful the treatment, and better our chances of survival will be.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

bill.resse --

There's a book coming out called "Obama's Slums"

I've seen some of the "galleys"

I felt like throwning up.

Barry Obama is the coldest guy I've ever seen.

He let the poorest of the poor who voted for him and got him elected to public office, freeze to death in unheated slums that he funneled $100M to his friend, former boss, and major campaign contributor Tony Rezok to repair or replace.

Barry was supposed to follow up on the work.

That was part of his responsibility from having gotten Rezko the contracts.

Barry never followed up, no work was done, and poor people who trusted him froze to death.

I've posted articles from Chicago Newspapers and TV stations.

Obama supporters conviently ignore them.

Its cost me a fortune in lost time to spend my time doing this.

I've done because nobody else was doing it on these blogs and I've wasted far too much of my time.

I'll look for the video from Channel 5 news and see if I can re-post it for you.

The real Barry Obama would sell his own mother for a cup of coffee.

He's as different from his carefully crafted public image as can be imagined.

He's really bad news.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

This would be the svreader who claims he's a CEO (but blogs all the day long), claims he's a Ph.D. (too bad UC Berkeley doesn't waward a degree in that discipline), claims he's a Jew who lost his family in the Holocaust. But forgot to mention his Grampy (after someone pointed out that he would have had to have been brought by the stork). And Grampy "escaped". Until the numbers didn't add up, so he said Grampy got out before all the trouble went down. And did I mention how he claims he's a millionaire with a network of DC contacts, though he won't flash his cash and won't name a contact? Oh, and he "values his privacy"?

You all should be laughing at this joke. svreader has zero -- ZERO -- credibility. Why any of you even credit his spamming (click on his name in the comments to see how he posts the same post eight times or more) is beyond me. Obviously he's an attention wh0re who gets off on irritating people.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 17, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

SVreader:

Ok, well Kerry came out for Obama. And you seem to like Gore. So, what are you going to say if he comes out for Obama?

Because I think that if he comes out for anyone, it will be Obama.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 17, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Some valid points, but what of Obama's behavior are you referring to? From what I've seen, the man has done nothing wrong.... unlike the Clintons, who have been plagued with scandal clear back since before Bill was governor.

She may have experience, but not integrity.

Posted by: datacus | March 17, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who doubts that Obama will be the nominee, needs to read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080317/cm_thenation/1299718

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 17, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

storyofthefifthpeach --

Here's another example:

Comment on: Comments: Bush Is Unexpected Loser in Tuesday's Debate - washingtonpost.com at 6/7/2007 10:01 AM EDT

So far I've yet to see an intelligent, well thought out answer to any of my questions.
As far as the economy goes, Bush inherited a huge surplus and turned it into a giant deficit.
Bush is like the guy who steals your VISA card, buys luxury cars for himself and his friends with it and then sends you a $2 necktie. The Republicans are so excited about the $2 necktie that they don't notice the $500k that they now owe and must pay back in the future.

Then, of course, there's the whole dead soldiers thing, but Republicans have never been bothered with killing other people to make a buck.

How do you guys sleep at night?
Don't you ever worry that God might be keeping track of what you're doing?

Its sad what people will do if they think they can make a quick buck or think they might pay $0.01 less in taxes, even when it turns out not to be true over and over again.

Scratch a Republican and you'll find someone who will do anything to anyone if they think there's a buck in it.

You guys make me want to throw up.
I hope God punishes each one of you for what you have done by making you relive the pain of our dying soldiers for all eternity.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

storyofthefifthpeach ---

Sorry, you've got the wrong guy.

I voted for Gore and Kerry.

Would you like to know what I think of George Bush?

Here's a sample for you:

Comment on: Comments: Eugene Robinson - An Egghead for the Oval Office - washingtonpost.com at 6/2/2007 6:00 PM EDT
We stand at a crossroads. In one direction is light and reason and life, in the other darkness, superstition and death. The choice is ours to make, as individuals, as a country, and as a planet.
We must save ourselves, but to do so we must face reality, on its own terms, and we can only do so through reason.
Fantasy and wishfull thinking are not valid options. The last six years have shown that. They have cost us our reputatation, our financial well being and the lives of our soldiers.

We need a president like Al Gore who is a responsible adult and who has the intelligence and the temperment to address the difficult problems we face head on and solve, not spoiled children like Bush, Cheney, and Rove who run away from reality and live in a fantasy world while their actions destroy the real world for the rest of us.
Time is running out.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

bill.reese --

I've wanted to see a Black President for a long time.

I didn't think of it as "race guilt" at the time, I thought of it as "evening the score"

The same way I used to think about "affirmative action"

This primary race has shown me that its not that simple.

Hillary Clinton is far more qualified than Barry Obama.

Hillary Clinton is far more experienced than Barry Obama.

Hillary Clinton wants to see every American have high quality affordable health care.

She should have been a shoe-in, and it would have been great for Democrats and for America.

Barry Obama is a world-class con-man.

He's uses people the way people use toilet tissue.

Its become clearer and clearer that many people are voting for Barry because he's black, not becauee of his qualifications.

Its become clearer and clearer that many people will give Barry a "free pass" for behavior that would have ended the campaigns and careers of a dozen politicians.

Racism is bad, because it reduces a person to a single characteristic that means nothing and that doesn't even truly exist from a scientific standpoint.

I'm angry that sexism is "just fine" and that Barry's race is used by his supporters as a "universal wrench" that they can use to turn any loose nut to vote for him.

I'm angry because I don't like to see people taken advantage of, especially the young or inexperienced.

That's why I angry that the cult of Obama.

That's why I'm glad its almost over.

If the Democratic Party fails to end this fiasco, now, it will destroy itself, put John McCain in the Whitehouse, and set race relations back 50 years.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary had made a strong speech FIVE YEARS AGO against the Iraq War, joining with other outspoken Democrats like Gore, Kennedy, Wellstone and Obama instead of enabling George Bush and Dick Cheney's dysfunctional behaviors, she would have more credibility on this issue.

Why is it that Hillary does not point, as an example of her experience in crisis management, to her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee? Might it be that it would show that she did not do her job as a member of the opposition party in pointing out - five, four, three or even two years ago -the problems with the Bush strategy?
In fact, it wasn't until April of last year that Hillary finally sent a letter to President Bush asking him to provide an exit strategy from Iraq. In other words, she came out as an opponent of the War only after she became an official presidential contender. Also for the first time last year she did the stupid thing of denying war funding, unlike Obama, who voted to keep funding the troops even though he didn't like the reasons for going to war in the first place.

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HILLARY GOING FROM ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
Moving from the most hawkish position to the most dovish position, Hillary shows us why she would not be a good commander-in-chief, especially in the wee hours of the morning, especially on issues of life and death, war and peace.

OBAMA and Hillary do NOT have identical records on the war. That's Hillary's spin. Check the records and then vote your conscience.

Posted by: Anadromous2 | March 17, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

SVreader: You said: "I'm as a much of a bleeding-heart liberal as you can find anywhere.."

Didn't you previously say that you voted for Bush . . . twice?

I always have to laugh reading your stuff though. I have a feeling that you are secretly an Obama supporter and are just being tongue-in-cheek. What else could explain the crazy stuff you post?

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 17, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"I know lots of great Americans that happen to be Black."

svreader, what this a typo? Because this in itself sounds racist.

Are white people are voting for Obama out of 'Race guilt'? I'm white, and I didn't vote for him out of guilt.

It seems that the only people playing the 'race card' are people that don't want to see him in office.

Posted by: datacus | March 17, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the new Nixon.

"When a Black Person says something racist against whites, jews, asians, or hispanics, it's means its not racist"

Racists come in all races, religions, and creeds.

Obama's Preacher is as big a racist as Strom Thurman.

The fact that the both have Black relatives doesn't grant them immunity.

Some of the most racist people in the world are Black.

They can't even see their own hypocrisy.

That's disgusting.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

SV reader,,

Yeah, I'm with whatmeregister. I want to short your company's stock too. What is the name so I can call my broker?

Too bad Hillary is not traded publicly. I would short her and make a fortune.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 17, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Barry Obama has shown white America just how racist Black America can be.

Many liberal whites have been voting for Obama out of "race guilt"

If mainstream Black America fails to reject Barry Obama, his racism and his pastor, the sympathy is going to be all gone.

White people's anger at being played for totall fools will replace it.

Barry Obama has set white/black race relations back 50 years.

I'm as a much of a bleeding-heart liberal as you can find anywhere, but even I know when I've been "played"

Its over for Barry Obama.

Or its over for the Democratic Party.

I know lots of great Americans that happen to be Black.

I hope to God none of them think about white people the way Obama and his supporters do.

Look how fast they turned on Bill Clinton, who they had named "the first black president"

I hope mainstream Black America rejects Barry Obama and Rev Wright like they would a piece of spoiled food.

If not, God help White/Black Relations in this country.

It only works if both races trust, admire, and respect each other as equals.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Just for fun, I like to break out these whenever airbag Hillary opens her lying mouth; quotes on Iraq from her and other "leading Dems":

Quotes from leading Democrats on Iraq before vote to authorize Iraq war.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to iscalculation . And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


And spare us the "Bush lied to them" crapola; even if he or Cheney could "lie" to us; Gore and Clinton both were there when most of the intel our decision to invade was based on; do you think Slick Willy would have let her make the above statement if the intel his admin had collected and his appointed CIA director still stands by was bunk? Maybe, it was the right political vote and we know the Clintons are only about winning votes; not right decisions anyhow. Kerry was on the intelligence committee and so was Kennedy; so all 4 of the above had access to the raw intel to draw their own conclusions and the overall NIE (that most of them didn't read of course) was written by the Clinton-appointed CIA director Tenet.

Hillary is worthless, period. And both Dems are either to uneducated or too politically motivated to understand the effect our withdrawal would have. No one likes the Iraq War or thinks we did things well; but BS from her and others about how we got into Iraq (which was actually done with 27 Dem Senators and about 100 Dem representatives) and not acknowledging that we don't have a time machine; and therefore, have to be cognizant of the effect of any surrender on our overall national security and that of our allies (remember who "wins" if we "lose" - Iran and Al Qaeda), is insane and SOLELY politcally motivated. Just like the Clintons.

Posted by: fredgrad2000 | March 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we all just vote Nader and get it over with :-D

Posted by: datacus | March 17, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I heard Hillary's speech and as usual was very impressed by her intelligence and her well thought out planning.

I trust her, she is dedicated and can take anything any "highly educated" obama supporter throws as her (usually names, and stupid kid stuff - amazing how the more educated can't seem to string a thought together without an insult).

She will win now that we know Barak will be easily defeated by the republicans because of his 20 year involvement with a racist bigot, his mentor. A Reverend he thought so highly of and shared his views with that he put him on his "Religous' Committee. And then he lied

Bye bye Barak. America has a brilliant future president and Her name is Hillary Clinton.

You go girl.

Posted by: lndlouis | March 17, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Billary Talking the Talk,

President McCain, Walking the Walk! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't Hillary Clinton think before she opens her mouth? She just yaks! Look at the difference between her speech and the new governor of New York who realizes that the people need to work together. While Hillary is yaking, the true leader John McCain is over in Iraq getting first hand information. I salute his courage and service to our country.

Posted by: ArmyVet | March 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

x32792 --

I write all my own stuff.

Obama and his supporters steal all of theirs from other people.

Obama is as clean as a baby's bottom, right after you notice that babby's diaper really, really, needs to be changed.

Obama is as slimy and crooked a Chicago Politician as they come.

Obama supporters like you that talk about how "clean" Barry Obama is make me want to puke.

Do some reasearch, fella.

Obama's clean as a cesspool.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama or Hillary '08

On the contrary to the preacher, Obama spoke to the diverse crowd when he came into my town and he said, "We are family."

I'm not worried about what his preacher said, I'm concerned about the good that he can help bring to this country. Although for whatever factors he continued to stay at that church, he didnt make those statements and he has said that he disagrees with those statements, and his actions are very consistent to it from what I have seen.

Here is the link to watch in full:

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/14776921.html

For either of those two candidates, we should all be united for the good of this country.

Obama or Hillary '08. Where one fails, the other must continue. Nowadays, it is significantly important.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

svreader: you obviously had your lengthy cut and paste response ready.

All three Candidates have baggage. McCain's has been in Washington since the end of the Viet Nam War. If he was going to do something for his Country, he's missed a darn good chance. His campaign is run by Lobbyists.

Obama has noted his mistakes and poor choices in associates like the developer you mention and his inflammatory preacher.

The Clintons, on the other hand, offer us ample and continued mistakes and lapses in judgement throughout her reported "35 years of experience."

Of the three, Obama is still the "cleanest" candidate running.

My compliments to your copy writer(s). It has that well accomplished and insincere Clintonian, "We feel your pain" quality.

Posted by: x32792 | March 17, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama or Hillary '08!!

I hope people do not fall to the preacher story. I don't blame people for their scrutiny of the preacher. I think the preacher should be held responsible alone to answer for the things that came out of his mouth.

However, I also hope that they don't forget what Obama has done on the contrary to this preacher and consistently. As long as Obama isn't the one making such statements AND acting on them, I am fine. I would be disturbed otherwise. Obama has said he's against the words spoken by his pastor. The pastor has seen and knows how Obama likes to have things, with unity, with people together. I will judge Obama based on Obama alone, not by what someone else chooses to do or say. Furthermore, I will judge Obama running for president, not for pope, and I find he is qualified. I will judge Obama by his actions. I will judge Obama by what appears to me to be some wisdom in regards to this country. I am also impressed with his record even given his shorter time served. Obama appears to me to be on the right track. Hillary understands we need change.

I will judge Hillary likewise. She is not responsible for what her pastor has done, and she's not to be held accountable for Geraldine's statements. I don't think I should be a hated American, held responsible as part of the American group in general for a few Americans chose to do that affected other people and hated for them doing so. We individuals are responsible for what we individuals do. So by that shall we be judged.

This is not at all meant to be an insult because I do find favor in Bill Clinton. I personally don't think his cheating on his wife was a reason for him to be impeached as president. The cheating was a personal issue in my opinion, but he was The President, and he did the country good.

My hope is that people will judge Obama by what he has offered, by his qualities and capabilities, and take into consideration of the real issues going on today and not focus on the he say/she say stuff.

Obama or Hillary '08. Regardless of our preference, we shall stand united in either case For The Good of this country, not for retaliation or to be vindictive, or with bias or hate. It's time for us to focus on the bigger picture before us and not let the media get us sidetracked. That is my hope.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 17, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

At this point, it makes no never mind to most people what is said and what is not said. The economy is a disaster. the Iraq war is a Failure, and the Health system is the worst for most of us. These 3 issues all are a par. Who can do the most to get us out of this unbelievable and almost hopeless mess? The average American can only guess!. Most people know by this time who they will be voting for. Obama, the fool of all fools, dsys Hillary is hiding things Americans should know. OBAMA DOESN'T KNOW S**t from Shineola. When after 20 years he has been shocked by the Pastor he has adored . What can one think of such a supposedly NAIVE SIMPLE INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS HE IS QUALIFIED TO STAND UP TO LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD WHO CAN MAKE MASHED POTATOES OF HIM!

mCcAIN, THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY, BECAUSE HE IS A nothing but another puppet for gwb, mean and hateful cheney and the no.1 NAZI, ROVE who have all filled their money bags to overflowing with oil money - that McCain wants in if, of course, he has been on the IN all along. No suprises to most of us. SO, America - Make do and tighten the belts again. !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

svreader: The Clintons and McCain are the Candidates for the best government money can buy. A government which is morally and ethically challenged. A government which serves and protects itself first, the highest paying special interest next and Americans never.

The Clintons and McCain are a seamless continuation of the same financially incompetent government which has given us foreclosures, job losses, 50% currency devaluation, sub prime melt down, wide open borders and $4 gas.

Little Johnny can't read, our bridges are falling down, New Orleans is a wreck and we can not afford health care.

While the majority of American suffers, "seasoned and experienced" incumbents in both Parties, War Profiteers, and Big Oil are fat.

To answer your question, "Why vote for Obama?" I think Obama is our best and last chance to save our Nation.

I think Obama is the man to Unite (not divide), Heal and Lead our Nation.

It is time to drain the swamp.

Posted by: x32792 | March 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Is the scarf supposed to remind everyone about how she brought peace to Northern Ireland? -- I thought is was a little weird to have clovers on during a FP speech but I liked it.

Obama is giving a "preacher man" speech soon.

I think it is Tuesday. Today he is just trying to have it both or should I say Five ways. I think he has problems looking too calculating and selling out on his left wing. He had to join some church to get street-cred when he was 25 and white as could be for is community organizing (thats in his book). This was the biggest and most up-scale church on the south side. He has used the church for many different purposes over 20 years (not-Islamic - I care about the common man - lib guilt ect.) Now he is trapped by all his BS. He should have waited 8 years and run as who he is not a Magic Man.

For the cultist - this means his polling is showing this story is killing him - meaning people who saw the the story have changed there minds in many many cases.

Posted by: mul | March 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

You claim to be a major player at some Silicon Valley outfit (back-alley electronics resale or somesuch, as I recall). Any chance your company's stock is publicly traded? If your personal habits are any indication of the other employees' "work ethic', then judging from the amazing amount of time you spend on these boards instead of working, your company would be an excellent short play. Your company must be going broke with all that slacking on the clock. LOL

At the very least, your stockholders are having their good money pissed away paying your salary and getting nothing of value in return. Somebody needs to let 'em know.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 17, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

In her desperation to find a winning wind, Hillary tacks left on the war. It is so easy to move about on the political map when you have no guiding principles other than winning.

It is both funny and pathetic at the same time.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON voted us into IRAQ !

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 17, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Barry Obama's got a criminal kind of "smarts"

By his own admission, he's committed multiple felonies, but he was smart enough to not get caught, so he's running for President.

That's a Nixon kind of "smarts"

That kind, we don't need.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

You Go Girl! Billary has less smarts than granted by even her mosr ardent admirers. Once again, we witness an evasive leap of logic that will ensure the democratc are torn apart before the convention and McCain waltzes into the White House. What next, bill caught as Client 10(again)? She would rather start and enflame this civil war than bow to a superior intellect in Obama. For someone so "smart" she sure is dumb.

Posted by: djudge1 | March 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Is the scarf supposed to remind everyone about how she brought peace to Northern Ireland?

Posted by: pennycentury | March 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Intercept this chatter:

Surge is typical Bush - like tax cut - only works once, then your wad is shot. Second term, clock running out, money too. "I have capital and so I'm going to spend it" -- this guy does not know the meaning of the term "capital," obviously. That's like saying "I have blood so I'm going to piss it all out."

McCain wants to make both the tax cuts, and the surge, permanent.

Make tax cut permanent, monetize debt, fubar economy (not necessarily in that order).

Make surge permanent, fubar military, lose Afghanistan (just for starters) (not necessarily in that order either).

Do both at once, accomplish both disasters faster. Near future, hard times.

Okay, no good. Other options necessary. Discuss.

Posted by: pressF1 | March 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

x32792 --

Barry Obama voted identically to Hillary Clinton in every single war-related vote after he joined the Senate.

Will you still support him, knowing that?

Why?

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

How many times did she vote to fund (enable) Bush? And now the Iraq Invasion and Occupation is too expensive in deficit dollars and blood? Has she been a coma or just in the afterglow of her earmark spending?

Posted by: x32792 | March 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

First, I'm not going to play the Republican game of using ordinary campaign spats to assault Clinton or Obama. Although I am disappointed at some of the attacks her supporters and she herself have directed at Obama, they are love taps compared to what he would get in the general election. I've a slight preference for Obama for substantive and tactical reasons, but I voted for Hillary because he needs this struggle to toughen him up enough to face the Republicans. The NAFTA incident shows that he hasn't yet learned how to manage the news cycle; Clinton won that one even though she has passed the same double-message.

In Iraq we've had three successes: Saddam is gone; we don't have to worry about reconstituted WMD programs; and Muslims themselves have taken up the struggle against Al Qaeda surrogates.

This last is particularly significant. The struggle with terrorism will be won on the plane of ideas. When we kill terrorists they become martyres. When Muslims kill them, they become fanatical extremists.

For 4 years the people we were fighting in Iraq weren't enemies of the US, they were enemies of the occupation. We win what the army types call the counter-insurgency fight by not making new enemies who wish to kill us.

The way we keep these various factions, who have temporarily turned to other targets, from returning to resistance is making it clear that we are leaving; that they need to husband their resources in order to provide security for their families, neighborhoods, and tribes.

We pull out the international contractors who have displaced Iraqi companies and workers, ensuring there are idle hands desperate for money willing to fight for pay.

The pullout of forces will not be complete. We will keep a primarily non-combat force to provide support for local militias as long as they refrain from aggression against others. This also limits the emergence of a power vacuum that would draw the neighboring countries into Iraq's civil strife and spread instability around the region.

The JCS are pushing for re-deployment. I imagine they are also rethinking our mission in Iraq, though less is leaking out to the public on this.

They are blocked by Petreaus and ultimately Bush, who still imagines he can preserve a bright and shining legacy out of this botched mess.

The danger of McCain is that he attaches a similar desire not to personal ambition but to the image of the military and the glory of America.

Obama and Clinton are both likely to listen seriously to the JCS to protect themselves from the charge of having "lost Iraq'. But the election cycle has not reached the stage for that message yet.

In the meantime, they are best off defining the difference between themself and McCain, exactly as Clinton has done here. Obama seems to learn by immitation and variation (e.g., his healthcare plan); I expect we will see him follow Clinton soon.

Posted by: j2hess | March 17, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people.

Just Words?

God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

Just words?

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.

Just words?

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

Just words?

We started the AIDS virus ... as a means of genocide against people of color.

Just words?

In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said,

I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial.

Yes, just words.

Posted by: Umbria | March 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

I am old enough, and I did not then -- nor do I, today, knowing everything we know in hindsight -- disagree with Truman's decision to drop nukes on Japan.

Posted by: JakeD | March 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

When an area is over hunted the number of kills is reduced. Any reduction in the number of Iraqis killed as a result of our war crimes is because we have driven millions out of their homes and country and indiscriminately killed those who were unable or unwilling to leave.


Posted by: tisofthee | March 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --

Get off your high horse.

Obama's just as responsible for the war as everone else in congress.

Barry Obama voted for the war every single chance he got from the day he entered the US Senate.

Barry Obama is a self-righteous hypocrite.

Just like his supporters.

They both will say and do anything to win.

Just like Barry Obama did when he forced every other candidate off the ballot running against him in Chicago by using legal loop-holes and other "dirty tricks."

Obama's not Lincoln, he's Nixon!!!

That's not a new kind of politics.

Its the oldest kind in the book.

Dirty Politics.

That's the Chicago way.


Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Why is no one talking about the fact that the U.S. dropped a bomb in Pakistan yesterday killing dozens of people. In the Globe and Mail the Headline read U.S. bombs Pakistan... that got changed rather quickly to something less benign. This is something Hillary Clinton phoo, phooed Barack Obama over, ridiculing him for suggesting he would do the same.

Posted by: ac11 | March 17, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I wish both the Clinton Obama supporters would stick to facts. That would help this campaign a lot.

Obama did stand up against the war in 2002 and Clinton did vote to give Bush permission to go into Iraq. That was a major difference. But since both of those events- their records have been amazingly similar and I believe they both want to get us out of Iraq. The question is how to do it and how fast we can do it. Obama initially promised to have all troops out in 16 months but his own top foreign policy aid recently said that was only campating rhetoric. Hillary has stated she will begin to withdraw troops in 60 days but hasn't detailed the plan yet for total withdrawal because she has said she doesn't know what the situation will be when she gets into office and will aske her foreign policy advisors and the military to come up with a withdrawal plan the day she is sworn in. Well now Obama has basically through his advisors said the same thing.

So their policies are similar but Hillary has been more careful about annunciating hers. Maybe that is just another indication of more experience in foreign policy and in how important each word is when you are dealing on the international stage.

I do know that Barack Obama's claim that he has done more to stop the war than Clinton does ring hollow. Their votes are just about indenticle since he arrived in the Senate. It can be said that Cindy Sheehan did more to call attention to this disastrous war than either Clinton or Obama until they decided to run for President.

So let's get over the attacks and name calling and focus on who will be better able to deal with the situation we have now and who will be better able to deal with John McCain in the election. There is a very nice quote that McCain made about Clinton and she made about him when they both said the other is prepared to be President. That can be used in the campaign. There is no such quote about Obama and his lack of experience will be a tremendous issue for McCain to use. Obama may be able to overcome it.

Posted by: peterdc | March 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Well, since you don't know much about him, I guess that means Bilbray hasn't done anything really stupid recently. Which is a good thing, all things considered.

Do you disagree with Truman's decision to drop nukes on Japan? You're old enough to have some context in terms of the war in the Pacific, right?

Posted by: mnteng | March 17, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that anyone believes McCain is talking about a post-war occupation. To get to the kind of post-war occupation that resembles Germany and Japan after WW2 or South Korea or Italy or any of the other places where US troops have been stationed over the last 60-plus years, US soldiers need to 1) stop dying 2) stop having running firefights with "insurgents" 3) stop being the catalyst for a bloody and violent civil war.

This is far more like Vietnam than South Korea, Japan or Germany. No more large pitched battles, but plenty of smaller firefights and guerilla warfare. 100 years of a Germany like situation? McCain is selling the American public a bridge t6o nowhere.

As for HRC: She is blaming Obama for voting the same way she voted once he got into the Senate? C'mon. Really? He voiced reasonable, credible opposition to the war. But once he decided to run for president he voted the safe way. Sounds exactly like what she did.

HRC and McCain had to cast the votes to go to war. Obama didn't. Lucky him. Now he gets to use those votes to bash them. Now maybe the Democrats will start running some serious governors for president. Governors don't have voting records that get trotted out every time they run for president.

Posted by: NoKidding1 | March 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

jnb-I am no fool. I am Certain time will show all sorts of improprieties. Already we have been shown Sherkoff has wasted the DHS Funds to try to catch Drug Traffickers, NOT Terrorists!
Bushie is probably wasting more time tapping Drug Marketers Computers than al-Qaida's.

I have to wonder WHY he is so into shoring Up the Price of Illegal Drugs? ;~)

I wish we could get a REAL Republican Capitalist, who would realize that AMERICAN Farmers and businessmen should be CONTROLLING the Market, and making-while KEEPING, the $$$$$$ HERE! :-)

No, I am no Kool-Aid drinker! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Iraq = Arabic for Vietnam.

Old joke.

Posted by: mul | March 17, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The only long-term way to deal with Iraq is to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
Until votes are weighed according to education, community service, citizenship status, age, time in country, and criminal record, we will always have sub-prime leaders willing to lead us into senseless conflicts sugar coated with lies and half truths, and a military at the mercy of the daily whims of an increasingly incompetent majority of voters.

Posted by: bushieisa | March 17, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

jnb:

We are NOT in a post-war situation (i.e. major combat operations ended, but we are still there with the "surge" and other hot-spots), but at least we didn't have to drop any nukes this time . . .

mnteng:

I live in a different Congressional district, so I don't know that much about Bilbray.

Posted by: JakeD | March 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters want him so badly, that if he was found in bed with a dead girl, they'd say she died of happiness and if he was found in bed with a live boy, they'd say Obama cured his leprosy.

Obama supporters will say anything, do anything, and go to any lengths to force their cult leader down the throats of America.

America will eventually throw up, and that will be the end of the cult of Barry Obama.

On that day, the souls of the people who froze to death in his slums will finally rest in peace.

Until that day, I and other Americans that believe in accountability will not rest either.

Obama is a sleezy, slimy, chicago politician who masquarades as a saint.

That's disgusting.

Posted by: svreader | March 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear Rat-the,

If you HAD A CLUE you would know the surviellance laws allow spying as along as the law is followed (meaning court overview as the constitution says) the criminal-in-chief is putting the country at risk because he does not want an investigation into HIS illegal activity. So your moron-in-chief is sacrificing american troops to keep HIS OWN ASS OUT OF JAIL. But that's ok for a conservative.

Posted by: jnb | March 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Can't we just outsource the surge?

Or are these jobs Americans want to do?

Posted by: bushieisa | March 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

This speech is amazing-amazing in its hypocrisy in that this war was one fully supported by her, and amazing in its hubris-the arrogance that she can claim to credibly craft and engineer a withdrawal. The sacrifice of 4000 in a war that never should have been rests on her shoulders. The means and manner of withdrawal should not be entrusted to her.

Okay Clintonites, bring your usual venom and vitriol.

Posted by: upperdeck4 | March 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton shows intelligence and couragae. Obama is a hypocrit and should pack it up and go home. He'll never win in the general election at least with Clinton we have a chance. His relationship with Rezko is enough to take him down. Vote for Clinton.

Posted by: TALVES | March 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

OK, for those WITHOUT a CLUE:

WHAT, is DIFFERENT Today, than even during the First Iraq War(Kuwait)?

?

WiFi Internet.

THAT, folks, combined with all the other elements is WHY things are so quickly able to escalate. THAT, is what we are challenged with coming to terms with. And Dummies, THAT is why Bushie is trying so hard to get the NEW, IMPROVED surveillance Bills Together, and Passed!

And the Enemy within(Libbie Idiots) tries to block Him every way they can! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 17, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Some of the posts here are incredibly ignorant. We are in a post-war situation NOW. Our military utterly defeated the Iraqi military in four weeks. What we are in is pandoras box, taking sides in a religious war that arose from conservative ideology of empire and domination that cowardly conservative leaders who went AWOL from duty in Vietnam pushed this great country into. This illegal war was starrtd by war criminals with no conscience and a dark soul.

Posted by: jnb | March 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Saturday, March 15, 2008
Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear: Barack, Hillary

Well, it finally happened. America's racial history caught up with Senators Obama and Clinton. Obama's appearance on all the talk shows repudiating Rev. Wright's angry diatribes (called sermons) finally brings the boil of ugly American racism, festering since the South Carolina primary, to a head. Too bad and rather tragic. Tragic for the candidates--especially Obama--and tragic for America.

Race and racism have never been far below the surface in American politics. A quick primer reminds us all of the "hanging" of southern populism on the gallows of race baiting and bigotry. The creation of a deep divide between white and black working class voters in the south was not settled until black voters were segregated and denied their voting rights by a variety of legal stratagems. These voters did not return to the political arena until well after passage of Lyndon Johnson's Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Hillary Clinton grew up in the civil rights generation--todays baby boomers and the generation that cut its political teeth on civil rights and opposition to the war in Vietnam--Rev. Wright grew up in the civil rights generation. Barack Obama grew up in the post-civil rights era, a thirty something, Obama shared his generation's hopes for a multicultural America, wanting to put race aside and begin a hopeful new day--not in--but for American history.

Amazingly, he almost made it. Until the South Carolina primary we saw a democratic presidential primary contest based on the issues: substantive concerns about Iraq, America's place in the world, the economy. Both candidates appealed to a broad coalition of voters with younger and older Starbuck voters (the multicultural generation with millions of generational crossovers) supporting Obama and older, dunking donuts voters (the civil rights generation with millions of generational crossovers) supporting Hillary. It was a new day, a hopeful new day in American politics and American history: a black and a woman vying for the democratic party's nomination for the presidency. Eleanor Roosevelt should have lived to see the day.

In a tragic and terrible misstep it was Senator Obama, the Brer Rabbit of this story, who first raised race in the run up to the South Carolina primary. In a clever move, Obama accused Senator Clinton of not giving Martin Luther King Jr enough credit for the civil rights gains of Dr. King's era, of Hillary's era, the era of millions of aging white and black folks who lived through those years, who struggled through Freedom Summer, who responded to the non-violent appeal of Dr. King; most, black and white, rejected the divisive voice of Stokley Carmichael and the separatist voices of SNCC. Dr. King was honored as an American hero with a national holiday. Malcolm X was not.

Bill Clinton took the bait--grabbed hold of the tar baby. Ham-handed, a little like Brer Bear, former President Bill Clinton, so often the deftest politician in the room, reacted with understandable anger at charges of racism leveled at his wife, Hillary. Of course it was a political slight of hand, of course it was a sly way to excite and anger black voters in South Carolina, of course, it worked. But, unlike the usual Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear tale, this time, taking the tar baby out of the American closet meant that everyone was destined to get stuck. The tar baby tarred everyone; that particular American closet door was better left closed--especially, in the end, for Senator Obama. In that closet, was an ancient legacy of hatred and bigotry. Lynchings, murders, discrimination--informal and de jure--stood just behind the door. Rev. Wright, as Senator Obama has been at pains to point out, has been shaped by those same forces; Lewis Ferrakhan is another product of those same deep resentments, understandable pain and lasting hurt.

Nevertheless, once the tar baby is let out everyone suffers, especially the amazing, hopeful young Barack Obama. Slowly, race came to the fore following the South Carolina primary; each contest since has increasingly been marked by racial identity voting--black and white. Mississippi saw 90% of the black vote go to Senator Obama and in Ohio 1 in 5 white voters indicated they voted along racial lines. The simmering black and Latino divide has also been close below the surface since the first contests in California and the most recent in Texas.

But the angry diatribes of Rev. Wright bring these underlying resentments, this legacy of race and racism to the top. The issue, as this is written, is race; the worst possible outcome for Senator Obama and the worst possible outcome for turning a hopeful new page in American history.

cite: http://randomstrands-corky.blogspot.com/

Posted by: corkyreinhart | March 17, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

go for her, issues!!!! not Obama comments - she looks like a democrat party candidate instead of a "Clinton party supporter" - go after bush/mccain/repubs that is how it should be!!!!

Posted by: fixbone | March 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I think the other issue (besides casualties) is the hope for an end to "hostilities". Japan and Korea became stable fairly quickly after the wars were over. For many of us, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight, no matter how well our troops perform their mission. That and the $12 billion/year or whatever it is that we're spending.

I've been meaning to ask you your opinion of Brian PHILIP Bilbray for a while. I used to live in CA-49 (near UTC). I was surprised when he took over "Duke" Cunningham's seat. Does he have any challengers this cycle?

Posted by: mnteng | March 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

McCain idea is just a wish and probably a clever move for his campaign.

In reality South Korea, Japan and other countries where US troops located have nothing to do with the Middle East region.

The tragedy of Iraq war is that US can't leave it without complete loosing face and influence as the only superpower. Then Iraq will collapse as a country - and this will turn the region into complete mess.

So the position of Hillary Clinton is right and thoughful.

Posted by: vanitsky | March 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama did NOT vote against the IRAQ WAR. He wasn't in the senate yet. He has been telling people that he voted against the war, and a lot of people, even very informed ones, assume that he voted against the war. BUT HE COULDN'T HAVE. There is no evidence to indicate that he would have voted against the war if he had been in office at the time. He voted against the Kerry/Feingold amendment to withdraw troops in June 2006. He has a history of voting 'PRESENT' on controversial issues. On the IRAN resolution a few months ago, he conveniently disappeared. The IRAN resolution is even less controversial than the IRAQ one, so I'm skeptical that Obama would have voted aginst the IRAQ resolution given the pressure from the media and public at the time.

As for his foreign policy experience, he's already tripped over himself by showing a lack of understanding of what's going on with Al Qaeda in Iraq, and McCain was able to capitalize on it, chastising Obama and making him look like a schoolboy. Obama's response: like I wasn't reading the papers, like I -- like I didn't know what was going on. That kind of lame response in front of a crowd of college students might fly, but it doesn't fly with the general public.

Posted by: howdy999 | March 17, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a chance- especially with figures like this;

Hillary vs. Barack:
Nationwide Analysis on the Democratic Candidates Internet Efforts:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: davidmwe | March 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's remarks are a diversion intended to get the medias and the voters forget about her records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation).... What are these records? There are troubling facts:

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights:

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In january 2008, the Clintons received $20 million from business deals with Dubai in the Middle East:

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/bill-clinton-severs-ties-_n_82616.html

Shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation:

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

Let's ask Hillary to stop her diversions and let's ask her to release her records. The war should be against the corruption among our politicians, not about Irak.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY SPEAK:IF YOU REPEAT A OUT RIGHT LIE ABOUT OBAMA AND MCCAINS STAND ON THE WAR PEOPLE WILL BELEIVE IT. I HAVE LEARN HOW TO SMEAR MY RUNNING MATES FROM THE BEST. AFTER ALL IT WORKED SO WELL WITH MY HUSBAND AND PRESIDENT BUSH WHEN THEY DO IT!

Posted by: RENEA1 | March 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is not happy with the War she voted for?

She's so caught up in her own spin she wouldn't know the truth if it bit her in the cankle.

And what a loyal party member, making every effort to ensure that McCain wins in November.

Gotta love them Repubs in Texas though, they who gave her a popular victory, knowing full well they can crush her in the fall. And Hillary-ites just go along with it.

And way to go Hillary supporters. Way to support th downfall of your own party. Way top support cheating and theft.

YOu go along with the idea that, despite losing the popular vote and the delegate count, she should still win?

That's called cheating. C-h-e-a-t-i-n-g. Plain and simple. But, whatever, she's a steamroller, so let's see what she divides next...


The race is over, Hillary can't get over the loss though, and has decided to take down Obama with her. Scumbag?

Posted by: robertell | March 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

LOL!

Someone(ME!), should point out to the Dim Contenders(Doing IT!), that we have ALREADY been in Germany, and Japan, for OVER 50 Years, and in a "CEASE FIRE" in Korea for Close to that!

Just HOW LONG are THOSE Troops supposed to be deployed before they start calling for THEM to come home?

Dimocrats, and their Political Grandstanding, and Abuse of Issues are really making me SICK!

But, I guess it might be because I have a Brain! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

stupic = stupid and dangerous

Posted by: JakeD | March 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Actually, dyork, withdrawing 1-2 brigades each month from Iraq, beginning January 20, 2009 is a "plan" -- at that rate, we would be completely out in 20 months at the latest -- at least you and I agree it's a stupic plan : )

Posted by: JakeD | March 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Your war, Senator Clinton. Your war! You own it as much as the Bush administration does.

And you are co-owning the economic crisis, which is fueled by the Iraq war.

Now that the lives of almost 4'000 young soldiers have been extinguished, those of their dear ones ruined. Now that hundreds of thousands are dead, maimed, displaced. Now average working people find their 401k's, their pensions have been squandered in the fallout of an economic crisis that is maybe triggered and surely accelerated by your war.Have a look at what happens:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/numbers-open-thread/

Posted by: old_europe | March 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no Iraq plan. Saying you will start pulling troops out immediately (even her milatary advisors admit this is not a good plan and would never actually take place) is just campaign fluff. You know you are lying, we know you are lying. It is like her saying that she will insur everybody. It isn't realisitic and she has no plan to force everyone to get insurance but it sounds nice.

Posted by: dyork | March 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone dispute the fact that Americans are more focused on the level of casualties than how long a U.S. presence remains in Iraq, etc.? We've had a U.S. presence in Japan since MacArthur was Governor there -- although criticized for protecting Emperor Hirohito and the imperial family, he is credited with implementing far-ranging democratic changes in that country -- no one here is complaining about that U.S. presence, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur#Post-World_War_II_Japan

Posted by: JakeD | March 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I do agree that John SIDNEY McCain was referring to a post-war scenario, like Korea, not a hundred-year [hot] war.

Posted by: JakeD | March 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Monday, March 17, 2008
Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary Clinton indicated the next clever move of the Clinton camp--making a turn from attack on Obama by insinuation and surrogates, to a serious and detailed speech on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely against Bush and McCain. Having drawn Obama out to respond to the attacks, the plan is clearly to now outflank, moving forward on the issue of Iraq, thus leaving Obama standing amid the mire of the attacks while also attempting to underscore the foreign policy "experience" argument and to turn the narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of soldiers "who have made the ultimate sacrifice" and who have "experienced wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds and their hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to keep as many troops after the surge as before...is a clear admission that the surge has not accomplished its goals. Meanwhile, as we continue to police Iraq's civil war, the to our national security, our economy, and our standing in the world continue to mount." She then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to her core domestic issues--health care for the uninsured, pre-K for children, solving the housing crisis, providing support for college students, and offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of Bush to that of McCain, and citing chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she invoked the "unescapable reality"--we can have troops on the ground for 100 years--but there is no political solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "Withdrawal is not defeat--defeat is keeping troops in iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is losing our reseources and diverting attention from our key interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level strong attacks against Clinton in response to the onslaught of the previous weeks, Clinton is now premptively changing the message and focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq, and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter is certain to draw media attention, and is intended tactically to leave Obama standing in the echo of his return attacks, in the potential position of being a step behind, with the questions of Clinton, however legitimate, unanswered. After having leveled the most broad-brush attacks against Obama, the Clinton camp is now attempting to place Obama in the perceived position of leveling attacks, rather than dealing, as they now happen to be, "with the serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn. Instead, come strong--having first *tied* Clinton's speech to the questions that will now be raised about her, e.g.

Hillary Clinton, has raised questions about fitness for office--at the same time that, as the person running second in this contest, she has said that I would make an excellent Vice President. She has questioned my experience, when she has less experience governing, and key figures from her husband's Administration who were with her at the time have that that experience did not occur. We know the other charges that have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having questions raised about herself, serious questions about her own fitness for governance, about her own "experience", about her own--let's say politely veracity, in statements that she has made and is making, now--she would like to change the discussion. Now--she would like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I know...this is just her newest change, the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just have to wonder. Where was she when we were focusing on the serious issues? Where was she focusing he concerns when Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where has she been when we have been focusing week after week on the serious issues of resolving the war in Iraq, on providing security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next week? Do we want a President who does not know what she will say from week to week? Who does not know who she will be at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the turn, and playing catch-up, let her make her turn--and then box her within it, by tying it to and framing it within the context of her previous changes and actions.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company