Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton: Millions More Want Their Turn

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) addresses her supporters from Columbus, Ohio after Tuesday's primary election results filter in.

By Perry Bacon Jr.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Despite windy conditions in the Washington area, Hillary Clinton's campaign is determined to fly back there tonight, not waiting for the results of the primary in Texas.

And to hear her remarks at her victory party in Ohio, it was clear why: She's still in it to win after beating Barack Obama in the Buckeye State. Her husband's remarks about her need to win both states may be inoperative, and she is running about even with Obama there anyway.

"We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way," she told a crowd of more than a thousand supporters at a ballroom here.

"Millions of Americans haven't spoken yet and they want their turn," Clinton said.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 4, 2008; 11:47 PM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton , Primaries , The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain: 'The Contest Begins Tonight'
Next: Obama Still Firmly in the Lead, Strategist Says


Obamas women bashing club is finnally getting its due. His cut and paste speeches are sounding hollow.

One year in the Senate was not enough and it's beginning to show. Cute and cudly does not rump experience.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 5, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

(It looks like Part 1 of the message didn't make it after all) No class? martinedwinanderson forgets that Sen. Obama would not look at Sen. Clinton at the State of the Union address after elbowing his way past her to put an arm around Sen.

Posted by: HRXchange | March 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

(Part 2 of Comment. Sorry I hit the send button) Kennedy. I do agree with him that a party of change cannot abide corruption: Note an Obama worker signing up Texas caucus goers before the meeting was in order, Obama denying the "Canadian" meeting, and (perhaps) holding Sandusky county polls in the most heavily African-American precincts. The last charge makes about as much sense as claiming that Sen. Clinton "spoiling" a string of wins is corrupt.

Posted by: HRXchange | March 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

We want Hillary in Pennsylvania.

You are darn right. She is a fighter. She has been able to stand up to some of the toughest witch hunts and has done so with class.

I want someone like that in the White House.

Posted by: cyberaim | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how many people are still angry at Hillary Clinton because she forgave her husband, because she put her country ahead of a personal drama, and because she looked at her entire family situation instead of just reacting to a mistake. Hypocrisy and empty moralism are the province of Republicans; Democrats shouldn't be resorting to such negative tactics. If Democrats can't forgive Hillary, we deserve to be governed by Republicans.

Posted by: lartfromabove | March 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

After parsing the polls here is what should be Hillary Clinton's new talking points;

White is might.

Change is hard.

Gender trumps hope.

Clothes do make the man.

Religious affiliation hurts.

You can't beat the status quo.

See smear and fear does work.

The old are hard to convince of the new.

The less educated support my negatives.

When I control the press it is all about me.

Together me and McCain can beat Obama any day.

Bill counts in my winning strategy, without his last name I would've been a nobody.

And finally so what if I'm still behind on the delegate count. I will win. Just wait and see how I whine at the convention.

Obama's campaign has far more going for it than the above. And unlike the chant at Hillary's speech last night of "yes she will" his continues to be the most powerful...Yes WE can!

Posted by: AverageJane | March 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Do you feel a little shame once you've typed something like that. If I ever do, I hope I will.

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Why should we trust HRC to do anything honest. She is a sleaze who will do and say anything to get a primary nod. Her supporters will do nothing but plaster lies about Barack until they succeed in completely destroying the truth. I know Barak can take a punch but I thought the democrats were a different I see they are a different breed of republican. Retarded...the whole lot

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 5, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

All the doubters need to wake up. Hillary is the best qualified candidate. McCain will have Obamma for lunch. This guy is all blow and no go. Wake up America it takes more than a young good looking person to be president. I want someone who will be more than "present" in the white house

Posted by: oreosilver | March 5, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

How can we trust Hillary to lead this nation? She lied to us about her husband's misgivings and she wasn't even strong enough to stand up for herself. Hillary picking up the phone if a terrorist attack happens, Ha! She will probably start to cry and Bill win have to take over.

Easy decision for me if Clinton wins the nomination, McCain '08

Posted by: BT23 | March 5, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I was SO relieved to learn of Hillary's win. We need, no require, a woman president more than we need or want another man in the position. Perhaps, many have seen through B.O.'s facade to see H.C.'s experience and toughness.


Posted by: petralyn | March 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I am wondering if Obama would accept the VP spot now?

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Obama's campaign was not able to strike the decisive winning blow to Hillary. But now it is Wyoming (March 8th) and Mississippi's (March 11th) turn at bat. If Hillary loses both of these to Obama, then what can we expect? There are two train of thoughts on the Democratic nomination. One is that the longer this nomination goes on the more recognition the Democrats get going into the general election. The other train of thought relates to how more negative will the Democrats go, especially Hillary, to try to win the nomination.

I think the longer this Democratic nomination goes on the more negative it will get at the detriment to the Democratic Party chances come November. If Rezko and alleged NAFTA-doublespeak were Obama's junior Super-Tuesday roadblocks, then Peter Paul trial in October and national security will be Hillary's roadblocks in November if she is the nominee.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 5, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

For the Hillary haters, there is nothing she can do to convince them she's a good candidate. Obama, in contrast, can walk on water. Even his weaknesses are strengths in the eyes of the cultists. Hillary has won the big states. She has the support of blue collar America. That's a huge plus. Obama's support is kids under 29, white folks with PhDs, and African Americans, hardly a winning coalition. So what that he's performing well in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. Lot of votes to be had there ... not.

Posted by: dhayjones | March 5, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

All the political pundits are saying that an extension of the Obama vs. Clinton battle is damaging the Democratic Party and playing into the Republicans' hands.


Who was it who said, "Any publicity is good publicity?" Hillary and Barack are all over the newspapers and the evening news, while McCain is an afterthought. Every day the two of them duke it out, the more it gets embossed in the voters' minds that they are the candidates for president. Once the Democratic nominee is chosen, it'll be like a coronation.

So Republicans, quit gloating, and Democrats, quit fretting!

Posted by: abstract_comm | March 5, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

First of all, the honeymoon is over for Obama and he doesn't like it. The honeymoon has been over for Hillary Clinton for a long time. I think the margin of victory for Hillary in Ohio (my home state) would have been greater if the Rezko trial had begun last week when it was supposed to start. This is only the beginning. Finally, the armor is starting to show some defects. Obama's judgment has not been tested until the last few weeks. Something people have not talked about: Hillary won Florida and Michigan. If those delegates were added to her total, she would be ahead. Can the Democrats really afford to exclude Florida from the equation while including Idaho, Utah, Georgia, Alaska, Vermont (all Republican states and likely to stay so in the national election)? It's the Electoral College stupid. Obama has not won any big Democratic State. What does that tell you? Again, Texas will not go Democratic either in November. New Mexico might. I think Hillary can win PA very convincingly. Then what? I think the longer the race goes on the more Obama will get Press Conferences where he has to limit the questions and has to leave because he lies about what he says, doesn't want to answer the tough questions or can't vote "Present." We are starting to see the real Obama. One of my friends (colleged educated as well as myself) told me at the polls yesterday she had voted for Obama looking at my Hillary pin. My response: "That's OK, because you will have another chance to vote for Hillary in November." This idea that college educated people are going Obama's way is another lie by their campaign. I have 17 years of education and I am voting for Hillary.

Posted by: xplanes | March 5, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

The only reason Clinton won 3 out of 4 in Ohio, texas, Rhode Island, Vermont was because CNN, MSNBC,FOX trashed Obama the night before the primary with unproven rummors.

Posted by: studio4030 | March 5, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

And by all means, do let us be objective. As an Obama supporter, I'm all for that. It is my understanding that the exit polling debunks your premise, bobbyvalenz. The higher educated vote is going to Obama. The emotional vote is going to your Hillary. Why else would she get all teary-eyed, run fearmongering ads and why else would you attack Obama on the basis of race rather than substance?

Posted by: SarahBB | March 5, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

You say "Obamites are a different breed," what a racist, stupid opener and then you have the nerve to say "Let us be objective." Pray a little harder. Search your soul again. I hate to be judgmental, but since you went there first, Hillary or no Hillary, I doubt God is quite finished with the likes of you.

Posted by: SarahBB | March 5, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Obamites are a different breed. They are neither Democrats nor Republicans if some of them cross over party lines just to vote for Obama( which is possible). They are at core the "Race Brotherhood/Sisterhood".
Now, if only the press will try to determine how many registered Republican blacks crossed over party lines to vote for Obama then my guess is right.
We must be very careful of what is happening in America right now. Let us examine our conscience and not let our emotions get the better of us. America is at the cross road right now. A woman and a black man competing for the highest office of the "World". Let us be objective about the facts. Pray hard and then decide.
I have done my soul searching. Hillary.

Posted by: bobbyvalenz | March 5, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

If Ohioans think someone who sat on the WalMart Board of Directors gives a rat's a$$ about whether quality jobs return to that state, they are too stupid for their shoes.

Posted by: SarahBB | March 5, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

ther you go more of the same the dems are shooting themselves in the foot just like they did in the last two elections. this ain't bill that's running and she has too many enemys in DC to get anything done, we already know she won't come up with a health care pkg. that will help the working poor ( the people that need it the most), obama on the other hand just doesn't have the know how to get it done. trust me these two will bury us in new taxes while kennedy and the crew (with hill/obama's help) will bury us with illegal immigrant amnesty way to go dems

Posted by: usaII | March 5, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Dear WP Censor,
Please see the comments of poster "ebubuk2004". They are vulgar, hateful and are a personal attack on one of our presidential candidates. Please don't allow this on your website.

Posted by: scole1 | March 5, 2008 7:05 AM | Report abuse

One unfortunate consequence of the actions of the Hillary-supporting blue-collar workers who seem to dominate Ohio is that Clinton may win the Democratic nomination. This means that the Bush-Clinton dynastic control of US politics may continue. It is sad for me, a foreigner who lived in the US for several years, to see the US, which represents the positive "theatre" of democratic politics, possibly become another India where the Gandhi family has prevailed for so long. If Clinton wins, after 8 years there are several Bushes waiting to step onto the stage, and after that Chelsea will be there.

But the saddest thing of all is that Senator Obama represents a truly fresh start for America, which is so sorely needed, and which the Clinton machine may derail. Senator Clinton is no more than a highly ambitious woman with dubious talents and no real experience. She is where she is solely because of her husband's coattails. Her shrill and unjust attacks on Obama suggest that the negative politics of recent years will go on and on.

What makes this "Clinton comeback" so pointless, however, is that she will ultimately lose to John McCain in the general election. Many who supported Obama will not touch her with a bargepole. I hope Americans who support her will remember, when this happens, that in the end it was her enormous ego that caused the Republicans to win in 2008!

Posted by: sskear | March 5, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

You know, you surprise me. If anything in this life is certain -- if history has taught us anything -- it's that you can Swift Boat anybody. Rocco?

Posted by: blasmaic | March 5, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

This is a mess. No good is going to come of it. The negativity - Did she forget that for years, she and Bill were involved in one scandal after another? And she's got the nerve to question somebody's ethics? Did she fall asleep and forget? What people don't think about is the broader picture here - Yes I am an Obama fan and everyone that I talk that is - was waiting for the Clinton dirt that they like to spew. She doesn't get it. For all of us who wants change this is just the same old. And if for some reason she is the nominee, a lot of people including msyelf will be voting Republican. If its going to be a mess give it to them.

Posted by: josias | March 5, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

Republicans win because at the end of the day they fall in line. They understand that filling Supreme Court, Justice Department, and other appointments, along with veto power is more important than an individual. Republicans can fight extremely nasty against one another but at the end of the day they fall in line.

For democrats this year it seems like "an offer you can't refuse" sort of race. Democrats (especially Obama supporters) seem to be saying, "elect my candidate or I will vote for Republicans in November". It doesn't seem to matter that the two candidates politically appear to have similar priorities and policies.

I think it is actually a good thing for Obama and Hillary that the race continues. I also believe that it is good for Obama that Hillary is attacking Obama. Seriously. Here's why. NOW Obama is going to be under attack by the republicans (that is what happened to Hillary when she was the leader). If He had won today those attacks would be vicious and relentless. Fox would be Fox again. However, Clinton can only softly attack Obama (all her attacks have been mild despite what Obama supporters say). This results in inoculating people from similar (and Harsher) attacks in November if he wins the nomination. People would have heard the attacks already and say is the same old thing (even if they are done more harshly) He will also have time to adjust. For Hillary, the though fight will make people realize that she has earned the nomination. She's a fighter and did not quit when the chips were down. At the end of the day they may need each other ( and us) if they are going to win this thing...McCain is a strong opponent.

Posted by: mcfield | March 5, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

Texas and Ohio put Bush into the White House. Why would anyone expect them to vote for Obama? I'm in PA and want my chance to vote against the status quo aka Hillary Clinton. So does just about everyone I know.

Posted by: mnjam | March 5, 2008 5:16 AM | Report abuse

My state doesnt vote until May. To deny me a say is unfair. Hillary and Obama need to fight this out all the way to the convention. Otherwise, this race will be a sham.

Posted by: autowx | March 5, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Have any of the Hillary backers ever taken a civics class in high school? Do any of them truly understand how our Nation passes laws? How it is that they expect a candidate with 47% of the country already against her to pass a single piece of legislation is beyond me, let alone a mandate for universal health care. Is it not strange that she derides Obama for his inexperience when her (at the time) inexperienced husband went on to become one of the greatest presidents of the 19th century? This election is a choice between a candidate and a movement. Candidates last for one election cycle. Movements last much longer, and need no specific candidate to sustain their existence. If the Democratic party wishes to extinguish the light that has been lit among young and first-time voters, the most effective means lies in nominating the senator from New York. This party's ability to shoot itself in the foot never ceases to amaze.

Posted by: mharvey847 | March 5, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama has tended to win in caucas based primaries.

Clinton tends to win when there is a popular vote. That says a lot.

Obama is a showman, and energizes the democratic left activists,insiders and youngsters -and those who want change but have no idea what any effective changes would look like.

Clinton is a proven stateswoman. Hardnosed and a practitioner of realpolitik? Yes, she is that now - but that is what it will take to get anything meaningful done.

Bush has left things in a real mess, a dangerous one. Obama simply does not have the horsepower to deal with that mess.

You think Obama will keep his promise to get us completely and quickly out of Iraq if he were to be elected? If you do, you are naive. Yes, we need to get out, but certain things MUST happen for us to get out, Obama has shown no clue he knows what those things are. What are those things? Ask Joe Biden.

Bottom line, I will vote for Hillary if it is Hillary vs McCain, but I will vote for McCain if it is Obama vs McCain.

Why? Clinton is a known quantity, Obama is not.

Obama shows a disturbing pattern of making serious mistakes in judgement, his talent for saying what people want to hear in the most specifically vague way is too transparent. He would make a good preacher!

Posted by: plaza04433 | March 5, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

HRC will make a gay out of him by the time she is done with this guy

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

Finally people start to see how P***y Obama is.

He could not handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is just a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republicans?

obama is a P***Y
HRC will bend him over and ....heeee


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

Reading all your comments here is very interesting. You have the Clinton haters/lovers screaming and then you have the Obama haters/lovers screaming and I yet I can't help but feel that the GOP people are just sitting back and laughing at us all...

Leave it to us Dems to shoot ourselves in the foot...

Posted by: allen.yeager | March 5, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama girls! (who've been fainting at Obama's sexy Charisma!)

Don't be too disappointed! The race is still on and you can still hope to plan your 2009 summer as an intern in the White House and be the next Rewinsky! There is still hope! Hope! Hope! Yes You Can.

Posted by: jurito | March 5, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

Finally people start to see how P***y he is.

He could not even handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republicans?

obama is a P***Y
HRC will bend him over and ....heeee


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Finally people start to see how P***y he is.

He could not even handle a couple of soft hits from HRC, he is a P***Y

Can you imagine him taking shots from Republicans?

obama is a P***Y
HRC will bend him over and ....heeee


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 5, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

Haven't you heard the news? Hillary won the Texas primary, too. She's got to be celebrating big time.

Posted by: ichief | March 5, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

I agree Senator Clinton is a Class Act with experience, compassion and the willingness to do the job. Someone we know who has no secrets in her life. She has not had a private life since the White House. What about Obama?? We don't know enough about him to know if we can trust him.


Come on people in Pennsylvania lets do what is best for our country...

VOTE HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: sandikay25 | March 5, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Hillary - The Class Act with Experience! You don't get get the bun, you get the real deal minus the silly, tiresome three-liner with no substance. GO HILLARY! YOU ROCK!!!

Posted by: joanharlin | March 5, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Democrats, we need to be happy that this race is not ending tonight. Let's remember that our goal is TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. I know that various demographics have an interest in making history, and that is also very important for the nation as a whole, whether we have the first african american president or the first woman president.

But it is also important for us to have a candidate with less vunerabilities in the general elections against the GOP. And the primary process helps us vet candidates for that purpose.

Senator Clinton has been vetted before and there is really nothing new to come up as a surprise in November. She has proven that she can defy odds and win (i.e., her victories in senatorial elections in New York). She has also worked magnificently in the Senate to across the isles. I remember when the Senator Majority Leader (GOP) declared that he would make like hard for her upon her election the first time. But she overcame that.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, offers "super star" type of excitement. He has managed to bring out young votes and massive participation in the process. Howerver, in order to succeed in bringing about change, one must have a morale authority to do so as well as the ability to work with different groups. One also needs credibility. We do not have much records to go by in evaluating that. During his time in the US Senate, he has been mostly missing in action from his leadership duties in the subcommittee. And in the Illinois State Senate, he mostly voted "Present". So, whether this was a calculated political move, it is very troubling.

In addition to that, his main campaign theme has been change, credility, transparency, and good judgement. It turns out that he has proven not to have exercised good judgement when it came to buying a mansion. if you can't afford a mansion, buy something you can afford. Otherwise, wait, save, and buy later. This is basis judgement 101. Choosing to deal with Rezko, a man under investigation, for an intelligent man like Senator Obama, shows how his personal interests would blind him and cloud his judgement. So can I really trust him on this judgement attribute? And then he refused to come clean or lied until corned and confronted with evidence. The same thing just happened with the Canadian Embassy issue regarding NAFTA. First he denied there was any contact. Then when confronted, he spinned that his senior advisor did not spea on behalf of the campaign. So another question is WHO IS RUNNING THIS CAMPAIGN? IS HE REALLY IN CHARGE? IS THIS GOING TO BE LIKE G.W. BUSH BEING DIRECTED BY DICK CHENNEY? Is he really in charge? Or is he just A FRONT FOR SOMEONE ELSE? WHO ARE THE POWERS BEHIND SENATOR OBAMA? I really need more answers because this country needs someone who will fix all the mess created by the Bush-Chenney group.

In light of this, even small things now must be looked at. This is a man who plagiarized, peeling off someone else's speech without giving him credit for it. Now Sen. Obama is a lawyer so he understands the implications, but it seems that HIS JUDGEMENT IS CONTINUOUSLY FLAWED IN SMALL SMALL THINGS. How can I trust him with this great nation?

We need time in order to have answers to so many questions now coming up. I just hope that the media will now swallow their pride and help vet Sen. Obama, ask him tough questions, and give him a chance to come clean. This is for the good of the country. He is someone who can help this country, but maybe not right now. So, MEDIA: PLEASE BE PATRIOTIC AND DO THIS FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION.



Posted by: paixetjoie | March 5, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

She doesn't seem to win Texas, and her husband told about the necessity to win BOTH states. She should concede. People in Ohio should pray that she would not win nomination and/or presidency. Other way, their today's stupidity would cause them something similar to 9/11. Probably, in Ohio. I mainly can attribute her victory to the special relalation, which she obtained in that state when she ruined Ohio recount of 2004 to guarantee Bush victory in that election.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Maybe she is returning to make sure these phone records (from when she was first lady) are not made public;

Clinton schedule release in late March

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of George Bush and the Republican party. Perhaps she has even hired Karl Rove and the Drudge report to help her with her campaign. She is a slippery, typical republican masqurading in a Democratic coat. I am sure the Republicans are dancing in the streets hitching their wagon to her dumpster just hoping she somehow gets to be their running opponent since they know they can not beat Obama. Oh Hillary you set such a poor example for woment, i.e do whatever it takes to win. Shame on you Hillary

Posted by: bdm1brulin | March 5, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Come on, cpcook. If you have gotten this far and "still don't know anything about Obama," you either haven't turned on a t.v., read a paper, or checked the internet in months.

Have you watched a debate? Read any political blogs, like this one? Googled Obama or his Senate record?

So much information is out there on any candidate in this race. Its so easy in this day and age to do your own research.

Don't wait for the media or "soundbytes" to do the work for you. Research them all and come up with your own opinion.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Am I the only one starting to feel that this is the 2000 election night playing out in slow-mo? Two candidates splitting hairs amongst delegates and the popular vote, but in a much more drawn out way?

I thought all of the talk of a protracted primary race hurting the democrats in the general election was a little alarmist. Now I'm truly starting to wonder.

Hillary seems invigorated and loves the new role of fighter, but I fear for what this will do to both her and Obama if it goes on too long.

For all her excitement for winning Ohio, this was assumed. The Vermont and Rhode Island results were also expected. The wild card is Texas, but it still too close to call or to make a big difference. Her evident relief at not losing Ohio (thus, really forcing her to bow out), doesn't change the results...but perhaps she will gain some momentum going into Pennsylvania.

In the end we are where we started tonight, except that Hillary isn't out and won't go out any time soon. Delegates and popular vote lead go Obama, still. Superdelegate lobbying in full swing.

The real question: what kind of back room deals with the Clinton campaign go through to get Florida and Michigan votes in? And how damaging will that be to the party?

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Hillary are going to need supers too win.

If she gets the popular vote she has the best case

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

I do think Hillary as a better chance than Obama vs Mac. But I have not been spot on this election or last election. Both can lose for sure.

Hillary does not make anyone scared except Obama. Mac does, and Obama for a several reasons, does the same.

Granted people see what they don't like in themselves or loved ones in Hillary. People 'Like Bill' more than Hillary even though she is by all reports a better human being. (we all have imperfections even Obama)

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Super delegates - vote for Obama. Hillary absolutely cannot be trusted. She and Bill have the same key strength: the ability to look someone squarely in the eye and lie to them. They are both corrupt and care only about furthering their own self interests.

Posted by: jcstclair | March 5, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

There is no way that this can end very good for the democrats:
1. Hillary is bashing Obama with negatives - Obama will be damaged in the general election.
2. Hillary can only win with super delegates. This will effectively destroy the democratic party.

No matter if you are a Hillary or Obama fan - everyone is going to loose.

Posted by: jem4 | March 5, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Can we see Hillary's tax return now?

Or should we ask the dictator of Kazakhstan?

Posted by: tchanta | March 5, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

aepelbaum.... I won't be too sure that Obama can beat McCain. I would like to vote for a Democrat, but I can't in good conscience vote for Obama. I don't like McCain's stance in Iraq, but that is just one issue. This late in the game, there is nothing you know about Obama except that he is often "misquoted".

Posted by: CPCook | March 5, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Wow - way to go Hillary. Keep it up. And please get it out that Obama is Jimmy Carter all over again. And he almost destroyed this country just like Bush has.

Posted by: njtrent | March 5, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Jabdenour, yes, Obama easily can beat McCain, and that is why Hillary was able to revitalize her campaign with the money of the same suporters , as McCain has. This Ohio people pretty much shut themselves.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

I would like to vote for a Democrat, but I can't understand why Democrats tend to like the least qualified person. Take Obama... of all those who ran for the nomination, he is the least qualified, and yet he seems to get the activist vote within the party. I am glad Clinton won Ohio. There may yet be sanity within the Democratic party.

Posted by: CPCook | March 5, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Texans give victory to Obama, please! Other way, this Iraqi war would never end!Oh, Ohio people, if Mrs. Clinton really wins, she would "thank" you with something similar to 9/11, as NY received; and you really, really deserve it.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Typical of why Obama campain is not a good one. Back under your rock.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Victory!!!!!!!!!!! - I guess the Obama cultist were calling too soon for Clinton to get out of the race.

Go back under your rocks. (Thank you Prof. numnuts and Canada) Obama needs to keep his lies strait.

Now that some of the media (not the WP) is covering the race that could spell real trouble for Obama.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Mr Nader did not receive the most votes of any candidate in the race. Sen Clinton has. That's a significant distinction.

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Geez, I guess none of the folks posting to this blog will be voting for Hillary . . .
Personally, I was hoping Obama would win the big primaries tonight and euthanize this fight before it drags on all summer. But if he can't beat Hillary, can he beat McCain? That's the bottom line. If B.O. has a glass jaw, better that it's revealed NOW rather than - as usual with the Dems - in November. And, conversely, if he's tough enough to hang on and ultimately beat Hillary, all hats off to him and he has my vote - gladly and proudly. It would just be nice if Dems could have the choice of who's best at bashing McCain, rather than who's the best primary Dem basher. We'll see. Jury's still out . . .

Posted by: 661oldpost | March 5, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Mr Nader did not receive the most votes of any candidate in the race. Sen Clinton has. That's a significant distinction.

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

She did a good job to win Ohio, yet the bigger picture is Texas, where she had a huge lead going into it;

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Texans give victory to Obama, please! Other way, this Iraqi war would never end!Oh, Ohio people, if Mrs. Clinton really wins, she would "thank" you with something similar to 9/11, as NY received; and you really, really deserve it.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Texans give victory to Obama, please! Other way, this Iraqi war would never end!Oh, Ohio people, if Mrs. Clinton really wins, she would "thank" you with something similar to 9/11, as NY received; and you really, really deserve it.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: jhol16 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's decision to go on tonight means that she is this election cycle's version of Ralph Nader in 2000.

Add "spoiler" to the Clintons' record of private, public and financial misdeeds.
A party of change cannot be a party to corruption.

P.S. Did you notice that after winning Ohio tonight, Hillary mentioned Barack Obama, but the 11 times he won she couldn't bring herself to mention him, much less congratulate him on his victory?

No class.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 5, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

"Her husband's remarks about her need to win both states"

I'd be curious how often this remark has been referenced by the "reporters" of the Washington Post. My impression is it appears in at least 90% of all articles and blog posts that reference Sen Clinton. That strikes me as excessive.

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

She's running back to DC to raise money and to personally beg superdelegates to sit tight.

Posted by: staxnet | March 4, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company