Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In Ohio, Clinton Full of Fight


A supporter holds an old magazine featuring Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y, during Clinton's campaign stop at the Student Union Auditorium at the University of Toledo, in Toledo, Ohio, Monday, March 3, 2008. (AP.)

By Dan Balz
CLEVELAND -- In these final hours of the primary campaigns in Ohio and Texas, Hillary Clinton's message has all the subtlety of a clanging bell. It's: "I'm a champ. He's a chump."

You can see it in Texas with the ringing phone ad, her starkest effort of the campaign to brandish her experience and brand Barack Obama as unfit to protect your children in an international crisis.

You could see it Sunday near Youngstown, Ohio, when she appeared on stage with middleweight boxing champion Kelly Pavlik and adopted every scrappy metaphor she could summon to identify with people who for decades have absorbed the blows of a declining economy.

Clinton's stump speech in Ohio is a recitation of tales of woe -- poignant stories of real people she has met or been told about along the campaign trail who have grappled with adversity ( job losses, no health-care coverage) -- and for whom there has been no happy ending.

She wears their stories on her sleeve, and her audiences in Akron and Austintown and Cleveland instantly respond in a way that tells you they have seen those same stories in their own communities and know the kind of people she describes. A woman who came to hear Clinton near Columbus on Sunday morning described to me her reaction after moving back to the state upon her retirement and seeing the once-thriving Buckeye State in a new light after years away. Sad was what she said.

Campaigning through central Ohio late last week, Bill Clinton asked those in his audiences to raise their hands if they knew someone without health insurance. All over the gymnasiums where he appeared, hands shot up -- so many that those who did not were in the minority.

Clinton's answer to this is not merely to empathize but to fight. Her ads here feature Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who in 30 seconds repeatedly uses the word "fighter" to describe the New York senator. Across the state, Clinton's closing message is boiled down into a single sentence: "I'm a fighter and a doer and a champion."

Given the Clinton campaign approach to all things, there is little doubt that these phrases have been carefully tested with polling and focus groups and that the words she is using are echoes of what her messagemeisters have concluded Ohioans in particular want to hear. The fight phraseology has become so prevalent that it drowns out almost everything else coming from the campaign.

Clinton has struggled from day one in this campaign to strike a balance between strength and empathy, between toughness and compassion. Her advisers have argued and debated over the course of the campaign about where to pitch the message. If she does not win the nomination, there will be plenty of second-guessing as to why she and they couldn't get it right.

Unlike Obama, who constantly takes the barbs aimed at him from Clinton and her advisers and rebuts them with direct references to his rival as part of his stump speeches, Clinton does not much talk about Obama by name. But his persona -- or that which Clinton wants her audiences to see -- is ever present as she talks about wonderful speeches that blow away like the dust at a shuttered factory a few hours after they've been delivered.

"I don't want you leaving my events and saying, 'That was wonderful. But what was said? What was it about? And what are you going to do?' " she said in Westerville on Sunday. As the audience responded with foot-stomping approval, she shouted, "One thing you know about me: I am not afraid to get into a fight on your behalf."

Her crowds Sunday -- predominantly older and female -- were boisterous and supportive, if not particularly large. In Akron, the school gymnasium's upper bleachers were virtually empty and only one side of lower bleachers was pulled out for spectators.

In New Hampshire, she found her voice with a teary-eyed moment when her emotions got the best of her. It was a moment that conveyed vulnerability. Here she has adopted a different voice, one that takes the vulnerabilities and problems of others and puts them on her shoulders. This may be the authentic Clinton. Her message is not uplifting, but it is direct and determined. In a workers' state, she comes off as the ultimate laborer.

Clinton is a realist who understands her current plight. She has little margin for error on Tuesday and is now fighting for survival. She is the embodiment of the voters she now hopes will save her candidacy. She has been knocked down -- didn't truly see it coming, which was the way she described the steelworkers in Youngstown who saw their plant gated and locked and their lives turned upside down.

On Sunday, Clinton talked of the resilience of people in Ohio, and she meant them to see the same in her. She will lift them up if she becomes president. But first, she needs them to lift her to victory on Tuesday to realize that promise.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 3, 2008; 12:25 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Dan Balz's Take , Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Questions Obama Adviser's Dealings With Canada
Next: Penn Credits '3 AM' Ad With Momentum

Comments

aeuy inkuxc
celexa oral solution

Posted by: celexa oral solution | August 21, 2008 5:34 AM | Report abuse

dstjo emhoy yeixaqh saoky
paxil overnight shipping

Posted by: paxil overnight shipping | August 21, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

pcijdu lzaydxv zuaiqgo
effexor efedra

Posted by: effexor efedra | August 21, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy paxil medication 35385 buy | August 18, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

xune jqnivhk zgtlpr ykniweh
celexa time release

Posted by: celexa time release | August 18, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

ntjcx dorcsnf qbtha smjehn
zyprexa risks

Posted by: zyprexa risks | August 18, 2008 4:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cymbalta lawsuite | August 17, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: beta blocker and tremors and effexor | August 17, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

wbtyek bpvu
zyprexa withdrawl

Posted by: zyprexa withdrawl | August 17, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

cfmy dvzixm szqhdug tqfw
drug addiction treatment

Posted by: drug addiction treatment | August 17, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

dylxnfq pqoki zvqco
copper cause hair loss

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

dylxnfq pqoki zvqco
copper cause hair loss

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

zcixquj dwrpazt akrzgfi
kamagra sildenafil citrate

Posted by: kamagra sildenafil citrate | August 16, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra 200mg uk | August 16, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra 200mg uk | August 16, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lexapro and jaw tightening | August 16, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor rx change in effectiveness | August 16, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor rx change in effectiveness | August 16, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: negative side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

aknij bavnrol
cheap generic propecia

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

xahtw fdsltb cdpu
50 mg ultram

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 5:49 AM | Report abuse

xahtw fdsltb cdpu
50 mg ultram

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

iyxoe uqjcom tvac
ultram ingredient

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse

iyxoe uqjcom tvac
ultram ingredient

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:44 AM | Report abuse

wlfo riuazq lakcu
symptom ultram withdrawal

Posted by: symptom ultram withdrawal | May 11, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

mqaur ayskozh ikzrn vcwh xvrumiaf qlrdmn cmnog wogu oimhyg

Posted by: ucty euxpf | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

teihmjgz lbkyfcr wgkmxfojd bwzglio qozvmang nuiyv iuvk

Posted by: rmlwt qbraowxhd | April 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I hate to say "I told you so" because it wasn't really that hard to predict Ohio, given the polls I saw. Sorry to disappoint all you Obamaniacs -- there's no hope that she drops out now -- I am wondering if he would accept the VP spot now?

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Watching the process from abroad is enlightening.

What strikes me most is how self serving everthing Clinton does and says is.

She has gone negative against her own party, given the republicans ammunition and she is practicing the politics of fear. 3am phone call ads, slights against Obama.

She is a skilled politician but I am tired of the same old, same old from American politics. If she takes office she will be a tool of corporate organisations and lobbyists from day one. Nothing big will change, she inspires hated not collaboration.

I question the judgement of a country that elected G Bush twice,(Twice I still can't believe it) and may swallow her divisive, fear mongering and dishonerable tactics.


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

It's so ironic that you support a candidate whom you admire for "new politics", hope and unity, and his supporters are so divisive and ugly. I respect everyone's right to their views. But I've seen so many, many more vulgar and hateful comments directed at Hillary.

Like this gem.....

hillary clinton = human fecal matter

Posted by: maricopajoe

Posted by: tessa2 | March 4, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

jasonmezydlo:

Do you think I am a "racist moron" for using Hillary DIANE Clinton or John SIDNEY McCain's middle name too?

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink and all the mud in her backyard at Obama, and unfortunately with the US, some of these lies and smears seem to stick. The Clinton dynasty may win the nomination yet with the very negative tear-down politics taken straight out of the Swiftboat Republican team. We can look forward to a general campaign when Hillary will have to explain all the corruption hidden in her and Bill's tax returns, and there will be zillions of shows and ads featuring women who have been assaulted by the first Clinton. This is what Obama refuses to publicize, as he is only talking about issues and playing defense against negative lies but not attacking the Clintons' many many flaws. The Democratic party and the nation will face a decade and more of divisive ruinous politics and the country will spiral faster down to its decline.

Posted by: shirleylim | March 4, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Jake.... whatever your middle name is...

You are racist moron.

Posted by: jasonmezydlo | March 4, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Quote: You can see it in Texas with the ringing phone ad, her starkest effort of the campaign to brandish her experience and brand Barack Obama as unfit to protect your children in an international crisis.

Can you do more damage to your party than that ad? During the primaries of her own party, she does the utmost to damage the man who may well win the nomination. So the Republicans will know fully well where to hit for the Presidential election.

Wherever she treads, Hillary Clinton shows the worst judgement when it comes to the interests of you Americans. The jury's still out when it comes to her own interests.

She is about to lose you the elections in November:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/comment-this-cannot-go-any-further/

Posted by: old_europe | March 4, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

It would behoove Mr Balz to consider recusing himself from further reporting on this campaign. It is apparent he is unable to do so in a responsible, professional manner and it reflects poorly on his employer and himself, as well as poorly serving the public at an important juncture.

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

When did Hillary Clinton deliver health-care reform or demonstrate her economic wisdom and foresight while Alan Greenspan was warning of irrational exuberance as the subprime housing loans were created and pandered during her husband's administration and her husband supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization without any conditions such as protecting the environment or labor and property rights to levels that are comparable to western standards?

Today China is not only a leading contributor to environmental pollution and global warming (thank you very much Mr. Nobel Laureate, Al Gore), it's also pushing up oil and other commodity prices, taking our jobs and stealing our intellectual property.

If experience, wisdom and judgment may be relied upon to judge a presidential candidate's abilities to solve problems, then let's look at the records of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

2005 - While Barack Obama promoted a restoration of balance between work and wealth and criticized special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary Clinton and her husband liquidated their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.

2002 - While Barack cautioned that without clear rationale an invasion of Iraq would encourage the worst impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda, Hillary told Larry King she didn't regret her vote on the Iraq war resolution because like the Bush administration, the Clinton administration viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat to the international community.

1999 - While Barack secured bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary supported her husband's Iraq "regime change" policy in order to divert public attention from the president's marital, legal and ethical infidelities.

1989 - While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review's first black president, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor received payments from a law firm that was doing the state's business and received board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart's anti-labor union practices.

1979 - While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary reaped profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and left taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.

In Hillary's eight (8) years in the Senate, the Congressional Record (www.thomas.gov) shows she "sponsored" only two (2) pieces of legislation that were presented to the president for signature. The first piece of legislation (S. 1241) was to establish a historic site in New York state, the second (S. 3613) was to name a U.S. Postal Service building.

At 3:00 AM who is Hillary gonna call in a national crisis? GHOSTBUSTERS? Without any attachment to a position and no leadership qualities or principles to guide her in a time of national crisis, Hillary like her husband, would need to first conduct a poll to determine what is in her political interest before committing to any national decision.

It's refreshingly nice to see the better angels of America's character prevailing as voters reject the racial, religious and ethnic slurs being spewed by the divisive supporters of Clinton, Limbaugh and Hannity.

As a Republican-leaning independent, I will vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee running against John McCain but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Sara_Bergstein | March 4, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

thinktank - you are incorrect, unless you are a GOP supporter, then from your persepctive it is good for you. At its current tone, this race extending would be a disaster. However, IF, it was on the high road until the end, it would be great - but the way it is going now, nastier by the day - it will produce nothing but ill will.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 4, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Here's the bottom line...this race is knocking the socks of the Republicans. They can't get any traction or attention because of the 2 rock stars the Democrats have running.

Join Clinton and Obama in a class act performance and be a part of history. There is NO WAY this is bad for the party.

Posted by: thinktank | March 4, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

marthap1-Bad news.

Both Obasama and Billary are NOT on your side when it comes to Health Care.

They, are on the Insurance Companies side! They want everyone(But the 15-20 MILLION Illegals who have destroyed our Hospitals with Emergency Room and Maternity Ward/Pediatric Rip-Offs), to have to buy or be supplied with INSURANCE!

How many people do you know who are Bankrupt due to INADEQUATE Insurance?

TREATMENT is what is needed. NOT, subsidizing Middlemen between the People and the Doctors and Hospitals!

Removal of 20 Million freeloading Invaders and ALL their wrongly Naturalized Spawn would also go a very, VERY long way towards making Medical Treatments for legally residing Americans affordable again! Not to mention the incredible Boost to our Salaries!

The Dimocrat Socialists, do NOT share this view! :-(

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary screwed up health care reform, BADLY. She voted to invade Iraq. She supported NAFTA. She refuses to meet with, communicate with and negotiate with our "enemies" unless they first jump through the hoops she sets up for them. She has run an inefficient and dishonest political campaign... her campaign has no message and no vision, her staff is in turmoil, she has had to fire her campaign managers, her campaign almost went bankrupt until she "loaned" it $5 million.

And this woman wants to run our country. Think about this, people !!

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 3, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY: GO AWAY and leave us alone !!! Get a little class once in your life and, unless you win blowout victories tomorrow, GO AWAY. Have some consideration for your party, your country and what the voters want. VOTERS DON'T WANT YOU. GO AWAY, and take your cheating, lying, rapist, disbarred, impeached husband with you.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 3, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Somewhere, a Mental Ward has lost a Patient.

And it was a Big One!

LOL! I preferred "AfraidofRAT" ;~)

BTW "Fraidy", if you are suffering from some "Curiosity" thing, I believe JakeD might be willing to help you! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Some delegate math:

Current estimates (with BEST Hillary numbers):

Pledged:
Clinton - 1035
Obama - 1187

If we take the poll numbers for March 4, assuming Clinton wins EVERY undecided voter, and the polls reflect the number of delegates at stake, we get:
Ohio - Clinton (56%) 79 delegates, Obama 62 delegates
Texas - (52%) 100 delegates, Obama 93 delegates
Rhode Island - (63%) 13 delegates, Obama 8 delegates
Vermont - (43%) 6 delegates, Obama 9 delegates

The delegate count ON March 4 would be:
CLinton - 198
Obama - 172

After March 4, the pledged delegate count would be:
Clinton - 1035 + 198 = 1233
Obama - 1187 + 172 = 1357

Let's add in the announced superdelegates (again, using the best estimates from Hillary's perspective, CNN's estimate):
Clinton - 236
Obama - 185
That means there are 373 superdelegates from which to gain support, if none switch.

We now have:
Clinton: 1233 + 236 = 1469
Obama: 1357 + 185 = 1542

There are 606 delegates to be decided between March 5 and June 7. Counting delegates to be selected (606) and superdelegates who haven't announced (373), we get 979 delegates.

Clinton needs 556 of those 979 outstanding delegates to get to 2025, or 57%. Obama needs 483 of those 979 outstanding delegates to get to 2025, or 43%.

Of the remaining primaries after March 4, the 3 largest are Pennsylvania (158 delegates), North Carolina (115 delegates) and Indiana (72 delegates).

Obama has closed a 14 point poll deficit on 2/17 to a 4 point poll deficit now. Let's say Hillary wins Pennsylvania by 10%, 87 delegates to 71.

Obama is leading in North Carolina by 10 - 14%. Let's say he wins by 12%, 64 delegates to 51.

Obama is leading in Indiana by 25%. Let's say he wins by 12%, 40 delegates to 32.

Hillary actually loses 11 delegates in those three states compared to a 50/50 split. She would need to win 60% of the delegates (NOT 60% of the vote, but of the DELEGATES) in the remaining states to win the nomination at that point. And that is including all the undeclared superdelegates who haven't declared in that delegate pool. Considering that 94 superdelegates announced for Obama in February, and 51 for Clinton, a 60/40 break of superdelegates for Clinton is difficult to fathom right now.

Possible? Yes
Probable? No

Posted by: critter69 | March 3, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

jd4lad,

I am old enough to remember when Jack Kennedy was President, and sadly Barack is no Jack Kennedy, not even close. More like Ted Kennedy his prime benefactor right now. Jack Kennedy, was a war hero and did 3 terms in the Senate before he ran for the Presidency. If he were alive today he would be considered a Conservative. Read some of old speeches. Also, he compromised with his arch nemesis LBJ for the good of the party, he didn't try to strong arm his opponent out of the race for the good of the party. What part of the Democratic process is this? Did I miss somthing?

Posted by: rjclay | March 3, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG! A CLOSE CLINTON CONFIDANTE HAS REVEALED THAT ALL CLINTON WANTS IS TO DEPART ON A HIGH NOTE! SHE RECOGNIZES THE MATH IS NOT ON HER SIDE BUT SHE DOES WANT TO MAKE A STRONG EXIT! YES, SHE IS LEAVING TOMORROW NIGHT!GOOD LUCK HILLARY!

Posted by: allenmasomere | March 3, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has no realistic chance of winning the nomination, unless she wins both Ohio and Texas by close to 2-1 margins.
If she fails in this and still continues her campaign, her only objective could be to prevent an Obama Presidential victory in 2008, thus allowing her another shot in 2012.

Posted by: lightsplash | March 3, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

You might be an idiot!

If you close your eyes and listen to the candidates' answers to issues and end up
not voting for the candidate who best resembles JFK during this election.

Posted by: jd4lady | March 3, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The last time Hillary tried duking it out on our behalf, her health care plan flopped like a one-eyed salmon trying to get upstream. Hillary will not solve our country's problems, no matter how hard she tries to convince us she will. Anything that was ever worthwhile in this country came about because there was a movement of change to power it through. Obama is the only candidate that can drive such a tectonic shift.

Posted by: katefranklin60 | March 3, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

JackSmith1 wrote:

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

Posted by: yellodragon | March 3, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

mp2007,

Your good friend jacksmith1 was referring to Kosovo, NOT Somalia. If you think Somalia is a Nuclear Power its time to put down the crack pipe and stop watching Blackhawk Down.

jacksmith1,

Well done!

Posted by: rjclay | March 3, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Hubert Humphery like Hillary wanted to fight to the bitter end. He took the Democratic party down with him, and his end around the electorate in 1968 to force his way on the convention destroyed the Democratic party as we know it. It led to Richard Nixon and more years of death and war. The answer to McCain is not the so called fighting democrat. Humphery the fighter lost Ohio in the general election to Nixon. His nomination demoralized a generation of young democratic voters. Dont vote for Hillary, end her candidacy now and do so emphatically. If you don't then count on a McCain presidency, more years of war, and a possible Jeb Bush/ AlGore match up in 2012.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Congress people endorsing Obama:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements#Newspapers

Senators

* Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Budget Committe[1]
* Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), former 2008 Presidential candidate and Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs[2]
* Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, and the Committee on Indian Affairs[3]
* Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senate Majority Whip[4]
* Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)[5]
* Sen. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Ethics Committee (D-SD) [6]
* Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions[7][8]
* Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee, Chairman of the Small Business Committee[9]
* Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee [10]
* Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) [11]
* Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) [12]
* Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Intelligence Committee [13]
* Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) [14]
* Fmr. Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ) [15]
* Fmr. Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-MO)[16]
* Fmr. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI), (R-RI while in office)[17][18]
* Fmr. Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA)[19]
* Fmr. Sen. Gary Hart (D-CO)[20]
* Fmr. Shadow Sen. Jesse Jackson (D-DC)[21][22]

[edit] U.S. Representatives

* Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)[23][24]
* Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA)[25]
* Rep. John Barrow (D-GA)[26]
* Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL)[27]
* Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)[28]
* Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) [29]
* Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) [30]
* Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)[31]
* Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-NC)[32]
* Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA)[33]
* Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO)[27]
* Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL)[34]
* Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-MO)[35]
* Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)[35]
* Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)[27]
* Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL)[27]
* Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)[35][23]
* Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL)[35]
* Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL)[35][36]
* Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) [37]
* Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)[38]
* Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)[39]
* Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX)[40]
* Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)[35][41][23]
* Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) [42]
* Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)[35][43]
* Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX)[44]
* Rep. Al Green (D-TX)[35]
* Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)[45]
* Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)[27]
* Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL)[27]
* Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin[46]
* Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH)[47]
* Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)[48]
* Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)[35][49]
* Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)[50]
* Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)[35]
* Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI)[51]
* Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI)[52]
* Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)[53]
* Rep. John Larson (D-CT)[54]
* Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)[35]
* Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)[55]
* Rep. David Loebsack (D-IA)[56]
* Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)[57]
* Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) [58]
* Rep. George Miller (D-CA)[59]
* Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)[35]
* Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA)[60]
* Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT)[54]
* Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA)[27]
* Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN)[30]
* Rep. David Obey (D-WI)[61]
* Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)[62]
* Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)[63]
* Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ)[27]
* Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL)[35]
* Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA)[64]
* Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)[65]
* Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)[66]
* Rep. David Scott (D-GA)[67]
* Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) [68]
* Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)[69]
* Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) [70][23]
* Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)[71]
* Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN)[72]
* Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)[73]
* Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)[27]
* Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD)[74]
* Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY)[75]
* Rep. Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) (non-voting Delegate)[76]
* Fmr. Rep. John B. Anderson (I-IL), (R-IL while in office) [77]
* Fmr. Rep. Berkley Bedell (D-IA)[78]
* Fmr. Rep. Don Bonker (D-WA)[citation needed]
* Fmr. Rep. Brad Carson (D-OK), Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense[79]
* Fmr. Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA)[80]
* Fmr. Rep. Mel Levine (D-CA)[66]
* Fmr. Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli (D-KY)[81]
* Fmr. Rep. Pete McCloskey (D-CA) (R-CA while in office) [82]
* Fmr. Rep. Abner J. Mikva (D-IL), former White House Counsel under President Clinton; Chief Judge, DC Court of Appeals[83]
* Fmr. Rep. Major Owens (D-NY)[84]
* Fmr. Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN), Member of the 9/11 Commission[85]
* Fmr. Rep. Howard Wolpe (D-MI)[83]

Posted by: info23 | March 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

In 1975, lawyerHillary attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim:


"I found this story about a case where Hillary used her knowledge of child abuse to get a man off of rape charges to be very sad and disturbing. Of course, it was her job as a lawyer to provide a competent defense, but it seems like she may have crossed a line by aggressively attacking the 12-year-old girl"s character.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

She seems to have carried that tactic with her when she actively participated in smear campaigns against the credibility of the victims of her husband"s harassment, even after he was caught lying under oath in a court of law. Making women terrified to report sexual harassment out of fear of being publicly humiliated and having their careers destroyed is a terrible role model for women, as is attacking the character of 12-year-old rape victims.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280

Posted by: info23 | March 3, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

We have seen this movie before;
Hillary Clinton 2008 = Hubert Humphery 1968
Barack Obama 2008 = Kennedy/McCarthy 1968
John McCain 2008 = Richard Nixon 1968

A vote for Hillary is a vote to make the same mistake made back in 1968 -- a destructive convention and general election loss putting GOP in power. We don't have to repeat history folks.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

After four days of non-denial denials, the Obama campaign now acknowledges a conversation over NAFTA with a senior Canadian diplomat. Has Obama been upfront about the 1993 trade agreement?

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A `HALF TRUTH & TRUE LIES ` PERSON.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVED HIS WORDS THAT HE IS A TRUE CHRISTIAN AT HEART & NOT A MUSLIM.

HE IS ONLY TELLING HALF TRUTH & TRUE LIES.

DO YOU WANT SUCH A PERSON AS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS PRESIDENT.

VOTE HILARY OR VOTE REPUBLICAN MCCAIN

Posted by: pema1 | March 3, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

We have seen this movie before;
Hillary Clinton 2008 = Hubert Humphery 1968

In case you are too young to remember, or so old that your forgetting, Humphery didnt deserve the nomination but got it over the will of the primary voters in a lot of states. Humphery was the candidate of the super delegates of the time who were party insiders. It ripped the party apart, as did his reluctance to apologize for the Vietnam war.

Barack Obama 2008 = Kennedy/McCarthy 1968

RFK and McCarthy tried to make the party about something other than the big shots in Washington. Unfortunately tragedy stopped the effort just as RFK had the edge in California.

John McCain 2008 = Richard Nixon 1968

McCain has that baloney attribute tricky dicky did of promising a secret plan to solve the stalemate of the war. Of course the war went on for years.

A vote for Hillary is a vote to make the same mistake made back in 1968 -- a destructive convention where democrats may protest in the streets in Denver and a general election loss putting GOP in power for years. We don't have to repeat history folks. Vote Obama.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary!

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Ted-Strickland-Toledo2C-Ohio-Sen-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/photo/

I believe that many old and wise people do not believe that only a beautiful speecher with slim experience policy. They had been known about a long history as a fact. I am serious if a weak person could be an election president from Dems that would not beat McCain - the old hero this November.

Bill Clinton was a successful president and built strong economic in the USA for 8 years, while Hillary learnt a lot experiences with various events over the world, also she is able to be a senator in NYC - a famous economic and largest city for two times. Hillary will do better to build economic than Bill's presidency time if she be a nomination of Dems. Only best expect if the Clinton/Obama radical factions will come to the realization that would be big helpful for Dems.

Posted by: yellodragon | March 3, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

We have seen this movie before;
Hillary Clinton 2008 = Hubert Humphery 1968
Barack Obama 2008 = Kennedy/McCarthy 1968
John McCain 2008 = Richard Nixon 1968

A vote for Hillary is a vote to make the same mistake made back in 1968 -- a destructive convention and general election loss putting GOP in power. We don't have to repeat history folks.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

EITHER YOU VOTE HILARY OR YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN McCain

EITHER YOU VOTE HILARY OR YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN McCain

EITHER YOU VOTE HILARY OR YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN McCain

EITHER YOU VOTE HILARY OR YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN McCain

VOTING ' BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA " WOULD DESTROY THE SECURITY & INTEGRITY OF AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE.

Posted by: pema1 | March 3, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

paulnolan97 you're fabricating...


feeling the walls closing in?


you're no match.

your facts don't match the players...

readers. check my posts against paulnolan97's

don't just read them.


and question both of us.


people like him deserve jailtime, givittothem


let him feel your pain, give him some....they've been parasitizing AMERICA for too long...

facts aren't jingles. forensic evidence works because of context...


example: who does war profiteering help?


people invested in the companies. James Baker the III, the SAUDIS, Kuwiatis, the bush families, Douglas Feith, Donnie Rumsfeld, the CHeenies, Eliot Abrams, Otto Reich, Adm Poindexter, Mike McConnel, John Negroponte...


hello pruneface rumsfeld, sell any nuclear reactors to North Korea lately ???

mislead CONGRESS much...FOAD.


.


and so on


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Like everyone else I don't know what is going to happen in TX or OH tomorrow. But a word of caution about the polls everyone. Telephone pollsters phone the homes of registered voters. They therefore tend to report the views of an older demographic. Young people those with just cells tend not to be included in the polling. My gut feeling (going on crowd sizes etc) is that this could get very nasty for Hillary tomorrow.

Then again I thought the same thing in NH and I was wrong about that result.

Posted by: knottjw | March 3, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

You guys just don't get it, do you. If Hillary is your nominee, McCain wins the general election. I know many republicans, myself included, who would vote for Obama. But Billary? Not in this lifetime anyway. Strategically, Billary's negatives preclude her ability to win the general election. Time to wake up folks.

Posted by: ed.foster | March 3, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

al Qearboyz are bushes boyz...

it's the way it is.


Saudis flew planes into the WTC. Saudis are bush family friends...they dance together and wave swords whilst holding hands

give it up. take AMERICA BAC Kfrom the evil that has infested our marketplace.... and hold scourt as if, it isn't evil.


remove the stain on our integrity by crushing the bush administration and all the lingering elements of it


so that it finds itself being held responsible for the destruction of democracy in a country which used to be held up as an example of what a democracy could become...


not an extension ofa few families overweening greed....crush them.


crush them.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

for every middle class person who manufacturing, telecomm, computer, banking, medical jobs


have been outsourced overseas...

AMERICA doesn't have that salary being spent on goods and services


in_country....because someone overseas is receiving that salary and spending it overseas...


labor savings cost, water lost out of the United States ECONOMY STREAM...


the ECONOMY and INFRASTRUCTURE IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.


for example: when HOME DEPOT's CEO retired with $340 MILLION, he not only took that money out of HOME DEPOTS pocket...he made it so more people working for HOME DEPOT didn't spend that money locally on HEALTHCARE, REFRIGERATORS, CARS, COLLEGE and so on...


for every selfish CEO that gets MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by shorting labor....


you, the citizens get a lot fewer people buying big ticket items that you rely on to drive the economy....


how many cars does a billionaire drive at a time ??? how many refrigerators do they use? how many houses do they own ???


which would you rather have AMERICA ??? a million people making 100K or 1000 people making a million each ????


if each family buys just one car, big screen television, a computer, a house ???


putting all of the money in the hands of a few.....makes a lot more people poor...


saving money on labor costs hurts the economy for everyone...


the best country to live in has the best standard of living for the most people, not the worst...saftey, comfort, happiness, quality of life are discernible

by everyone. we don't need to turn AMERICA into a third world country, by making our workers/citizens compete with 3rd world countrys

because the leaders are too stupid to understand that you can't kill the golden goose to get more eggs...

Hans Christen Andersen knows more than George W. bush and the corruption currently taking your country down...


arrest the slide, detain and sue the corruption....

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

We have seen this movie before;
Hillary Clinton 2008 = Hubert Humphery 1968
Barack Obama 2008 = Kennedy/McCarthy 1968
John McCain 2008 = Richard Nixon 1968

A vote for Hillary is a vote to make the same mistake made back in 1968 -- a destructive convention and general election loss putting GOP in power. We don't have to repeat history folks.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The republican party has been used as a tool by bushCO and CRONYs, none of whom are working for your future. They are working to fabricate collusion to put money in their pockets at the expense of the NATION. When the nation falls and it is republican partisanism that has aided and abetted that fall, republicans will be held responsible for the lack of insight, and the adherence to jingle type thinking.


Conservatism? With a 3 Trillion dollar budget. NO vetoe for 3 years? $100 a barrel oil?

Please being a republican means "not having to think," in my opinion.

Try voting for the best person, no matter what. Your country needs informed voters not herdable, brainless, animals. Wake up and take responsibility.

Tap dancing in restrooms for dinner is not my idea of a good husband.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Instead of asking about health insurance, why doesn't Bill Clinton ask: "How many people here know that I signed NAFTA into law?"

Posted by: smc91 | March 3, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

what are the MEN AND WOMEN IN IRAQ DYING AND LOSING BODY PARTS FOR??????

OIL and drug trafficking...

AND !!!,

are the United States Soldiers getting a cut, of _t_h_a_t_

____________________ M O N E Y ? _____________________no

no, they are getting their legs blown off, getting medals of honor and waiting two years to be declared disabled as they lose homes that they can't make mortgage payments on.

READ THIS:
Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos.

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...

93 PERCENT of the worlds' HEROIN came out of AFGHANISTAN last year...


SEARCH on Gary Webb, CIA, BUSH, Parry, Letter of Understanding...


read how the CIA has an agreement with the DoJ to profit from drug trafficking w/o fear of prosecution...


....bush doesn't represent the United States,


he represents about 1,400 people that are working together to defraud the United States, and the rest of the world...the stinking mess that is left when they are gone


will be yours to clean up


unless you jail and sue them...


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Are you nostalgic for the 90s?

Remember the 90s? Those good old days of the Clinton presidency? When Hillary stood by her man.

It's true that the horrors of this last Bush administration could make any previous president look like a national hero.

But with the former president's wife demanding that she's entitled to the Democratic National Committee's coronation of her candidacy, imagining the duo back in the White House is really unsettling.

Given the international embarrassment her husband caused, most Americans would probably prefer to forget his scandal-ridden administration.

The resulting media brouhaha distracted the citizenry while Clinton presided over corporations consolidating power, NAFTA disenfranchising American workers and the first World Trade Center attack.

After two decades of Bush-Clinton-Bush, America needs a president who can lead with integrity and repair our reputation around the world. Why does anyone imagine that another Clinton in the White House could accomplish this?

The former president has a history of indiscretions. Most Americans have made their peace with the costs of his poor judgment. But why should we think that he's suddenly changed? Did being impeached and disbarred have a reforming effect?

When President Clinton's intimate relationship with a White House intern became public, he refused to resign. And Hillary stood by her man, possibly enabling him to hang on to his position. But how did this benefit the country? Was America their first and foremost concern? Or was the Clinton Machine's political power paramount?

Recently, Senator Clinton demanded that a cable newscaster be fired for a slightly off-color remark he made about her daughter. Where was her moral outrage when her husband was discovered fooling around with a woman young enough to be their daughter?

Frankly, that was "news" I could have done without. And it dragged on for years!

Ever wonder how much investigating the shady side of the Clintons cost American taxpayers? Millions! This is some pretty pricey baggage the Clintons are dragging behind them.

What would have happened if Bill Clinton had resigned?

Al Gore would have been our president! Yeah, imagine the progress America might have made with a future Nobel Peace Prize Laureate as our president. But Bill's resignation would have hurt her chances for a seat in the Senate and a presidential run.

Hillary Clinton says she knows how to fight the Republicans, and that she'll be ready on "day one" to continue doing more of the same. Many have pointed to the obvious: this will only perpetuate the partisan politics that has prevented progress on the very critical issues facing the American people.

Hillary is a strong, remarkable woman. Actually, she's a politician who I'd like to see follow through on her promises, but in the Senate.

America is voting for change. It's a grass roots phenomenon--a movement. Will she be strong enough to step aside in this race for the good of the country? Will she make the hard choice and do the best thing for America?

I like happy endings. I want her to redeem herself by recognizing the leadership that Barack Obama offers and to start helping him succeed.

We the people don't need a president who knows how to box or one so polarizing their name on the ballot could ensure another hawkish Republican is installed in the office.

We need strong, principled leaders who will do what's best for our country. We really can't wait.

N.Logsdon Mandelkorn

Posted by: nlogsdon | March 3, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland)


Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United


.......The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected, according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government. The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there. The White House has not responded to various requests for comment.

Speaking of the Watergate, Riggs National Bank, where Saudi Princess Al-Faisal had her ``Saudi money trail" bank account, has as one of its executives Jonathan Bush, an uncle of the president. The public has not learned whether Riggs - which services 95 percent of Washington's foreign embassies - will be turning over records relating to Saudi finance.

Meanwhile, Bush has nominated William H. Donaldson to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Donaldson, a longtime Bush family friend, was a Yale classmate of Jonathan Bush.

On the very day of the tragic space shuttle crash, the government appointed an independent investigative panel, and rightly so. Why didn't it do the same on Sept. 12, 2001?


Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse


Actually the supers should vote as their state went, not the accumulated total of other states.

Hillary should get all supers from every state she won, Barack likewise. That is not overriding the will of the people, that is abiding by the will of the people.

Now I understand supers won't do that, but those that are undecided should reflect their state voters' choice.

Winning every big state except Obama's IL and just splitting the pledged delegate count with him is idiotic. What's the point of having primaries, to have it determined by red state caucuses? Give me a break.

This primary mess needs to be totally rethought, includung keeping Republicans from mucking with determining who they want to face in the general)

I'm behind you all the way, Hillary!

Hillary '08

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | March 3, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Give Up Hillary
You're only there because of Bill
Obama is the real democrat

Posted by: tdeneen | March 3, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton 2008 = Hubert Humphery 1968

John McCain 2008 = Richard Nixon 1968

Vote for Hillary is a vote for more years of war. Possible impeachment of McCain later on for his wacked out personality. Democrats go back into the abyss for 6-8 years.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Even if Barack Hussein Obama has the judgment to be president, the US and the people would be in danger if there is an oversight against Al Queda and terrorist or a nuclear attack. The US President must not have an oversight at all lest something worse than 9/11 happen again.

We must remember that he is borned of a Black Kenyan Muslim father and has an Indonesian Muslim step father. Being borned a muslim even though he has gone to church for 20 years does not make him any unmuslim unless he he has renounce his muslim religion which he did not.

That would be scary and dangerous if Barack Hussein Obama is elected president as he would be holding the button to the nuclear arsenal.

Is it an intentional oversight because its conflict with his muslim religion or a genuine oversight which could destroyed the country.

As chairman of an oversight committee charged with the force fighting al-Qaida in Afghanistan, he is only interested in running for president and not for the SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY & PEOPLE.

Would you want such a person such as Barack Hussein Obama who only has self interest at heart for a President.

Irrational, self interest, sleeping on the job (oversight),immature and conflict of interest ( being muslim & black)would best decribe Barack Hussein Obama.

Hillary Clinton IS A MATURE & RATIONAL person and will never be too busy to defend the country national security.

Posted by: pema1 | March 3, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The election in Ohio is about the economy, and the voters should prep themselves with a few facts about the Clinton economic record. Does America really want Clinton style Socialism? Unfortunately it's essential to preempt any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. The American electorate should carefully evaluate the Marxist rhetoric coming from the Hillary campaign and her minions. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | March 3, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

We dont need moron fighters who drag the party into a ditch like Bush dragged the nation fighting for national security. Hillary is a fighter without a mind or a means to her dream if she has any. She couldnt pass health care, and she never picked up the red phone. She better have a better answer than give me another pillow.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary reminds me of Hubert Humphery. He didnt care how much he damaged the party in 1968 to get the nomination. The net result is we got Nixon. Hillary should be on John McCain's payroll, he should pay her to keep fighting because if she gets the nomination its worthless. Close but no cigar is still a loss. Ask Hubert H god rest his soul.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

actually joy2,


since you're a repulsive scammer your question isn't relevant or truthful....


you're simply framing a lie with particles that seem like they are faintly true...


what is the truth ????

.


actually having lived and worked in several professions and areas in the United States... East Coast, West Coast and Middle America as well as the South...


I would say that

there are multiple things going on....simultaneously.

1. for the first time in the recent history of our nation, a college education is not a guarantee of a decent job.....there is a shortage of decent jobs outside of Washington D.C.


there is not the same life to aspire to that was available easily to everyone of any segment of society during the 70's


a quick step out of poverty and into a manufacturing job....for anyone that wanted one.

2. Republican CON jobs have eliminated a lot of intelligence, in the community, by training people, through a propagandized MSM

for example: most of television and radio are owned by 6 companies....they put out the same message.

for example: Rupert Murdoch, an Australian Billionaire, and good friend of George W. Bush and Company...just bought the Wallstreet Journal...he first attempted media takeovers a few years back...

ClearChannel used to own the bulk of radio...in the United States...they have created several dummy organizations to hide their ownership at this point. There are conglomerates buying up local newspapers and putting out a single stream of information.... The local / quirky "Village Voices," of America have been bought up...

MSM LIEs and HOMOGINIZEs....SELL SPIN....people don't know what to think...

many have quit listening as they did in Russia...when Pravda was the MSM of state..


3. Additionally, PEOPLE HAVE LESS LEISURE....without leisure people don't keep up with non essentials.

When I was growing up my dad watched television and read the newspaper....he was home by 5:00 PM and we ate and he watched the news and read the papers...he was literate, and reporters didn't lie about what was going on in order to get paid.

HOW ABOUT AN EXAMPLE OF DISINFORMATION ???

example: the occupation of IRAQ is to control a scarce resource....not for the United States, but because bush and his family friends make big money out of using the United States MILITARY as a business tool....


BushCO and CRONYs was too dumb to be able to cut a deal.

How much of the media is covering that ???


I could make the point by myself in an open forum with Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilley arrayed against me....using nothing more than obvious points.


9/11 ??? fabrication....how do I know ???


how the XXXX would we have 25 MILLION _ILLEGALS_ IN_COUNTRY if we had been attacked....


they would have had the country sewn up tight...


all they had was visual displays of "readiness," there was no real readiness and not further false flag attacks either....


AMERICANS have been dumbed down to take advantage of them.


....and you the media have helped to achieve that because your all flaming cowards....


not one of you has called the occupation of iraq


an occupation.


You think that someone braver than yourselves should do it??? Why ?


because you're XXXXies ??? apparently.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

She's a fighter and I would rather be in the trenches with a fighter than a dreamer.

Give'em hell, Hil.

http://strictlyanecdotal.com

Posted by: LeftCoastSu | March 3, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I dont want a fighter. We have had fighter presidents for the past 16 years and we are in a big time mess. Another fighter and we may not have a nation left. We need someone who can cross bounds. That is not Hillary.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Other than happy talk, whining and attacking BHO, what else can the witch possibly do? If she wins, I vote for McCain. She has convinced me that she is nothing but a divisive, ambitious shrew willing to play a sum-zero game. Reminds me of my ex-wife. I hope she gets what she deserves.

Posted by: michael4 | March 3, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- you sure seem pre-occupied with homosexual behavior -- why is that?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

To Readers from Foreign Lands:

Yes, gentle reader, what you have been reading is indeed what passes for political discourse in the United States. But you must understand that we do not have a parliamentary system as does every other democracy in the world. In our system, we elect an Absolute Monarch (called the President) every four years. Our voters are therefore extremely passionate about the next Investiture and this often leads to rhetorical excess.

Our system of government also explains why the current Monarch is able to rule for years after 67% of the citizens disapprove of him. In your democracies, of course, a No Confidence vote would have dispatched him to the ash heap long ago. You must also understand that our Two Parties are unusual but extremely important to our national mythology. Both are corporate creatures, but the Two Parties give us the illusion of choice. Illusion is very important to America.

So be patient and try to think kindly of us, even though our politics and policies must often appear as childish or altogether unhinged. We are not an evil people, although our Monarchs sometime do evil things.

Posted by: IceNine | March 3, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

a_bigone:

Unless you can point to a different ELECTED official, after 2009, there will be no "Bush-family people" in office -- the Democrats have controlled Congress for a while now -- if they retain control, and STILL can't fix all of your alleged abuses, why isn't that the Democrats' fault?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

"....Bill Clinton asked those in his audiences to raise their hands if they knew someone without health insurance." Yes, Bill. I went without health insurance for three years while you were in office. (until I reached Medicare age.) It was scary. I blame your wife for not getting something, ANYTHING done...but she failed miserably. United Healthcare remained free to cancel individual policies because they weren't profitable enough. People wouldn't buy insurance for any price if they were over 60, or had had previous health problems. I figure, if the Clintons couldn't get healthcare reform while Bill was president and they had a Dem majority in congress, why would anyone believe Hillary would get it done now?

Posted by: joy2 | March 3, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

On January 26, George W. Bush called on Guckert/Gannon at one of Bush's rare press conferences, "bypassing dozens of far more experienced reporters" according to Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher.

I guess that depends on the meaning of "experienced."

This was not Guckert/Gannon's first time near Bush. Guckert/Gannon was at other Bush press conferences and was called on by Bush once before. Moreover, Guckert/Gannon went to the White House nearly every day for nearly 2 years. Each time he went, he got specific permission from Scott McClellan's White House Press Office. And Guckert/Gannon went to Bush's White House Christmas Party.

How did a $200/hour gay male prostitute get near George W. Bush nearly every day for 2 years?

Don't tell me the Secret Service didn't know Guckert/Gannon's background. It took amateur bloggers at DailyKos about 5 minutes to find out Gannon owned male prostitution websites, and just two weeks for Aravosis to find out he was a $200/hour prostitute. I guarantee Scott McClellan and other top White House officials knew exactly who Guckert/Gannon was. According to RawStory.com, McClellan himself has been spotted at gay bars.

So how will the American people learn the sordid truth about Bush, the White House, and Guckert?

The Lying Right-Wing Media (LRWM) won't ask the question. According to those brave News Hounds who watch FOX so we won't have to, Gannon/Guckert's name has never even been mentioned on FOX [4]. Just imagine the wall-to-wall coverage on FOX if this had happened in the CLINTON White House!

But we'll ask it - and we'll keep asking it until we get the truth.

Did George W. Bush - and/or other top White House officials - have sexual relations with that man, James Guckert?

Lest you think this is an absurd question, I'll refer you to the widespread rumors that Bush had a long-term sexual relationship with his Ambassador to Poland ("don't forget Poland!"), former Yale classmate and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe [5]. As with every other Bush scandal (AWOL, Bulgegate, Harken Energy, etc.), the Victor Ashe scandal has been blacked out by the LRWM.

SEARCH on a few of these

GEORGE W. Bulgegate, Harken Energy, the Victor Ashe scandal


his people are posting here tonight: garden_nell, dcwsano, Cali-Gram, Dahveed1, dunnhaupt


compare their lack of information whilst long on opinions

with the exception of Cali-Gram she's outright lying...


wantto dance Cali-Gram I got a few minutes.


I worked in D.C., as someone on the inside you're all spin and slant


not truth.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will be fine, I believe.

Posted by: giangpost | March 3, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

LOOK AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH...


and DO A SEARCH on


BUSH, Walker, MONEY LAUNDERING

In 1953, Bush got money from Brown Brothers Harriman and, with partners Hugh and Bill Liedtke, formed Zapata Petroleum. By the late 1950s they were millionaires. Bush bought subsidiary Zapata Off-Shore from his partners and went into business on his own in 1954. By 1958, the new company was drilling on the Cay Sal Bank in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. These islands had been leased to Nixon supporter and CIA contractor Howard Hughes the previous year and were later used as a base for CIA raids on Cuba. The CIA was using companies like Zapata to stage and supply secret missions attacking Fidel Castro's Cuban government in advance of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA's codename for that invasion was "Operation Zapata." In 1981, all Securities and Exchange Commission filings for Zapata Off-Shore between 1960 and 1966 were destroyed. In other words, the year Bush became vice president, important records detailing his years at his drilling company disappeared. In 1969, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company of Boston, another company with strong CIA connections.

Career: Political leader. Received the Distinguished Flying Cross for Bravery during World War II; U.S. congressman from Texas (1966-1970), ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1974); Special Envoy to China (1974-1975); Republican National Chairman (1975-1976); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director (1976-1977); vice president of the U.S. (1981-1989); president of the U.S. (1989-1993).

In 1964, Bush campaigned against the Civil Rights Act. He lost that election but was elected to Congress in 1966 and again in 1968. He was defeated in the race for Senate by Democrat Lloyd Bentsen in 1970.

He served as Gerald Ford's Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from November 1975 to January 1977. As head the CIA, Bush was answerable only to President Ford. He was supposedly the first CIA "outsider" to hold the agency's top position. During his tenure as DCI he maintained a policy of disinformation and secrecy, despite a public show of cooperation with congressional investigations of CIA abuses such as assassination plots using Mafia hit men. In September 1976, Chilean dissident leader Orlando Letelier was assassinated in Washington D.C. by agents of DINA, Chile's secret police. The CIA knew of such plots, and the two assassins entered the U.S. using fake Paraguayan passports. But the FBI was kept in the dark about this information.

In 1979, the year before he campaigned for the Republican nomination for president, Bush claimed a nuclear war was winnable. Ronald Reagan won the 1980 nomination and chose Bush as his running mate. As vice president, Bush cast three tie-breaking votes to renew chemical weapons production, supported sale of missiles to "terrorist" Iran and the illegal arming of the Nicaraguan contras and other paramilitary groups he called "freedom fighters.


He also chaired The Presidential Task Force on Deregulation which, according to Mary Fricker in her book Inside Job, "set the tone" for bank deregulation which led to the savings and loan financial disaster of the 1980s.

___________________________________________________

but this is "the past," so it has no merit....


just like Global Warming is a myth, and Iraq is not in occupation simply to steal it's oil


and AFGHANISTAN is not a drug state that supplied 93 PERCENT of the WORLD's HEROIN LAST YEAR,


with bush family members sharing in the profits....


right? Obama, mr. big pants knows it is not relevant right ???


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

so you think their ilk will magically vanish when 09 comes....


that's what you'd like the world to think isn't it???


how long is the funding for Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel, KBR, DynCorp, Carlyle Group good for????


Jake D?


all of a sudden all of the bush family people who have their snouts in the trough are just gonna disappear ???


the ambassadour to the UN?

DHS, the National Intelligence agency...both units created from whole cloth by George W. Bush to subvert the rights of AMERICANS...the Patriot Act


the Supreme Court Justices????

really, that all disappears next year JakeD ????


are you trying to sell the rubes something Jake D.
/
????

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

The screeching old bag sure has got air! Any Democrat that votes for Clinton actively is contributing to electing John "four more years of Bush" McCain!

Posted by: Dahveed1 | March 3, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Horror scenario: Hillary wins Ohio, Obama wins Texas, cancelling each other out. No decisive win. Hillary refuses to quit, goes on and on and on slinging mud at Obama, trying various tricks like getting Florida counted, pressuring superdelegates, and destroying the party, because it's all about me, me, me! She will claw her way by tooth and nail unless they drag her off the stage kicking and screaming. Nobody wants that for President! So McCain wins in November.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 3, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

No, I don't wonder about that, but I do wonder if you think Lott or Bush are running for re-election this year? Quick, what years is it?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Politics would never be a career choice for me. I don't enjoy being forced to "play dirty", and up until this point in my life, I was someone who "voted Democrat" I kept my opinions to myself, because I didn't like disagreements. This time, I find that I can't keep my mouth shut. I have gotten bolder in defending what I believe in, and found how easy it is to speak one's mind when one doesn't have a face-to-face confrontation. My daughter has encouraged me to speak up, to "fight with what I write" for what I believe is " right". To set an example for my grandchildren and speak up when I sense injustice.
There is so very much at stake in electing the next president, and the number one priority should be QUALIFICATIONS. I wish That Hillary fans would read up on the Clinton history, before accepting the myth that Hillary has the most "experience" and that you will get Bill tossed in on the ticket. I regard the Clintons as a " two-fer" because that is how "they" have been campaigning. Hillary claims that she was co-president when Bill was POTUS, says that counts for "experience" . Okay, that means play the game/share the fame/share the blame: Hillary is fifty-percent responsible for the blame. Can't pick out the plums and toss the pits. This makes them "the Clintons" that were in the W/H as a "team" and are now running for a third term as a "team. Use your good unbiased sound judgment, and honestly review the Clintons' enormous history of wrongdoing. If that still doesn't convince you that it is a mistake to support "the Clintons", just imagine that Hillary "did manage" to get the Democratic nomination. The GOP can't wait to attack "the Clintons" with no holds barred. The Clintons will lose, because their luck is running out, too many hidden agendas. It is undeniable and unreasonable to expect that the Clintons will be allowed a third term as POTUS. The GOP wants to be pitted against the Clintons; they've been collecting evidence for years. The political toilet hasn't been thrown yet, and the contents are filling up, waiting, waiting, waiting, and splat: "it" will hit the fan.
With all due respect, it's a free country, and you can vote for whom you choose. However, Americans have shed their blood, their body parts, and their all, to defend this country. The "war against terrorism" should have begun during the early years of the eight years of Clinton tenure. The first terrorist attack on the bombing at the WTC in February 1993, should have been a red alert. In 1994, Bill Clinton hushed up a federal report that warned of possible terrorist strikes, including how hijackers could use airliners to hit landmarks such as the White House or Pentagon. His reactions after receiving such frightening reports were to keep quiet because he didn't want to cause panic. (Hillary must have been aware of this threat.) Terrorism was not high on the Clintons "to do" and "most urgent" lists. It's too late to say that Clinton should have appointed experts to track, report, share data, and respond to acts of terrorism. During the Clinton tenure, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda continued their attacks through October 2000. The statistics: 319 innocent Americans were killed and more than 6,200 were injured during the Clinton's tenure in the White House. The Clintons failed, they failed our country, they failed our military, and they failed the rest of the innocent victims worldwide. They were negligent, immersed in their own dramas, and ignored repeated warnings about bin Laden, and the continuously growing Al Qaeda band of terrorists. The Clintons missed several opportunities to capture bin Laden. I am not trying to create horrible rumors, these are easily verified facts. History cannot be re-written, but its harsh undeniable lessons should be remembered.
I fail to comprehend how anyone, after verifying the above information, can still want the Clintons back in the White House. The Republicans know that if it ends up McCain versus Obama, that Obama will win. That is why Barack Obama is under fire, and yes, they've attempted to take him down, both the GOP and the Clintons.
Barack Obama is extremely capable of serving as POTUS. He is extremely intelligent, honest, has integrity, and displays concern for all people. He has the ability to communicate, work with and obtain agreement from those with different views. I wish more people would ignore the "race" objections or "inexperienced" accusations that they have set up, and see that Barack Obama offers us an opportunity to get rid of the "good old Boy" politics. No payback nominations, the positions will meet different criteria: who is the most qualified gets the job. To govern with transparency, and to let us, the people have a say in how government spends "our money". BTW: I am not black, I am female, retired and I can still buy milk for my cereal. I just want our broken country to come together, and race or gender should not govern us. I have already voted for Obama, I believe that with him as POTUS, we can make a better world for our families, and ourselves. I would not have "wasted" my time writing this if I did not believe, from my heart, that we have to change this country, and can, if we work together.

Posted by: Cali-Gram | March 3, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, what does Trent Lott have to do with Obama or Hillary Clinton...


well it's called hypocrisy JakeD.


ever wonder why the black folk from New Orelans are still parked in a trailer camp in Baton Rouge Louisiana


years after Katrina ????


two things realestate and votes....

George W. is our first gay president, and yet he used homophobia as a tool to control the rubes with...


education is more important than events. want the people to make educated choices, tell them the truth so that they can see the caliber of the people that are


mis leading them, filling them with DISS information...

the republicans filth is unimagineable.....showing people the truth helps them to vote in a concious way....


Trent Lott is George W's good friend....


George W. and Trent Lott and some of insider washington work together in conspiracy/collusion/influence peddling...

do you know the parable of the 3 blind men and the elephant ???


one says the elephant is like a rope, he had alhold of the tail

one says the elephant is like a tree, he had ahold of a leg

one says the elephant is like a large snake, he had ahold of the trunk


AMERICANs have been misled for so long that they are like blind men, that need to be shown what the repulsivescammers look like.


thanks so much.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The notion that the federal gummint can "lift people up" is poppycock. What's more, Hillary has been carrying water for the banking industry for years. Her crocodile tears (and Obama's, for that matter) won't bring back a single industrial job.

All the whining of the victims and the promises of politicians to take care of them--so much hot air.

Posted by: GrumpyOldMan | March 3, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Oh and my the way in case anyone wants to know Rush Limbaugh now says on his daily radio show that he wants ALL the repukes to vote for Hilliary*breck girl* so that she will"Still be here after tomorro and the democrates will self implode eachother. If that isn,t dirty politics I don,t know what else it will take, personally I hope old fat limaugh meets with disapointment.

Posted by: grdn_nell | March 3, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Any young people or men supporting Hillary are probably Rush Limbaugh listeners come to try to undermine the chances of the Democratic Party.

Rush Limbaugh is asking all his right wing nut supporters to vote for Hillary.

Why? 1) She would be easy to beat if she she get the nomination; and 2) Even if Obama gets the nomination, by keeping the race going she continues to attack Obama and make a Republican victory more likely.

So Hillary supporters, remember Tuesday when you vote that the people who are voting for Hillary mainly consist of aging feminists, right-wing Limbaugh-heads trying to throw a monkey wrench into the Democratic Party, and the nut cases who believe Obama is a Muslim.

Enough, Hillary, enough. Go home!

Posted by: dcwsano | March 3, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has never apologized for screwing up health care the first time and for voting for the Iraq war. She messed with a prime democratic issue only to abandon it like an orphan as her husband remained president. She voted for the war resolution only to deny its her baby.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 3, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Hilliary and Bill stand behind NAFTA and CAFTA:
l evil twins. CAFTA "Central Ameician farmers will be unable to compete against highly subsidized production in the U.S. n elsewhere in the developed world not to mention the poverty it will bring to generations of farmers who has done a specilized way for their communities without the ruin of their cultural heritage and imposition into their homeland by which larger companies begin to move into their communities employing many of the residents, but also polluting the land and putting local farmers out of business... the end result is some one will pay, this result that is ignored by those who still haven,t been affected but will in the near future as what *oil* has done, leaving in its wake, levels of increased job losseses ,poverty begets desparate measures that end in more crime. But Corporate Bigwigs don,t mind the drawing of blood..so long as it doesn,t touch home, in their clean steril environments.

Posted by: grdn_nell | March 3, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

dcwsano:

Are the Hillary supporters in THIS picture "young" enough for you?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/02/america/campaign.php

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

a_bigone (I will try one last time):

What does Sen. Lott have to do with this thread, about Clinton or Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

on your list of congressional endorsements for clinton... 25 of the 91 are from NY!

LOL

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | March 3, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

lydgate:

Why do you think Obama, rather than Hillary, can beat McCain in November? In the latest poll I saw, McCain runs ahead of Obama on every issue except health care -- he has a 13-point advantage on Iraq and a 37-point lead on terrorism in general -- he even does better on managing the economy vs. Obama.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJ2.0k269dY0&refer=home

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

it's interesting isn't it????


the rot in the United States ECONOMY, from sending all of our money into war profiteers pockets


has extended to NORTHERN VIRGINIA
____________________________________________________

WP Article: "Foreclosure Auctioneer's Lonely Task,"
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 22, 2008

"Lot of interest out here this morning," Crossley muttered. No one showed up for the auction of 7 homes that were in foreclosure.

It wasn't always such a lonely job. When Crossley became an auctioneer two years ago for Purcellville-based Nectar Projects, foreclosure sales were few, and they would regularly draw packs of investors armed with cash and eager to bid. Now it's rare for anyone to show up. In the past three months, Crossley has conducted auctions on some 200 properties in Northern Virginia, and he has sold one.

_____________________________________________________


what does that mean, relative to the discussion regarding Obama and Hillary ???


that the people who caused this, currently deadlocking Congress and running things for their private benefit in WASHINGTON through the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

are trying to keep things status quo, maintain their grip on the cash flow...


not knowing what is going on in WASHINGTON, and saying that those who want to bring up specific examples _OF_THAT_ are talking about the past scares me.


I see a junior congressman, buying into and using what the repulsive scammers are selling as a way of getting elected


w/o regard to what his election will mean to the people.


you want to know what will happen? look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.


If we had acted 30 years ago on his very good ideas, there would be no energy problem, probably greenhouse gases would be under control and our economy would still be booming and manufacturing would still be in_country...


but Carter was backstabbed, because he wanted to "play fair,"

after Nixon, everyone wanted someone that would "play fair,"


unfortunately, Jimmy didn't know how to make sure the bullies played fair as well...


do I need to paint a picture ????


these guys don't "play fair,"


they have male prostitutes spend the night at the white house and use homophobia to herd the gomers...


they're trying to get you to back the Hubert Humphrey of the Democratic pack...


read up on it.


.....learn to recognize the perps, like maxmcgloin


it's your country, put _them_ in jail, attach their properties and sue them into oblivion


.thanks so much.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

There is rumor going around that Obama was caught having sex with a minor a few years ago. A 14 year old Jewish boy. Anyone knows anything about this? I wonder why no one pays any attention to the negative things about Obama. Is it true that he is involved in some type of scam to avoid paying taxes? Why don't these things get more publicity, I was supporting him, but after his wife said she's not proud to be an American, I am voting for Hillary. She also said that in America Black people are abused and can get kill for anything. And this is who we want as the first family of this country, this is twisted.

Posted by: wmaster | March 3, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, scotiscoti. Wish more people had their eye on the ball (winning in November), rather than letting the Clintons tear the Democratic Party apart.

Posted by: lydgate | March 3, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Rosa2:

I believe several people have already pointed that out to "the man in black" : )

P.S. to everyone else: Hillary DIANE Clinton will win in Ohio -- mark my words!!!

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse


To "the man in black" I think you got a bit confused .. those 91 names you posted under Senate votes for Clinton, Ummmmm several of them are not in the senate. Now here is how you do it... 50 states X 2 senators each, ( are you doing the math?) = 100 and you claim 91 dems and repubs are supporting Clinton. You have posted a huge error ridden post.

Posted by: Rosa2 | March 3, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Everyday McCain gets stronger. The irony of the Clintons waging this dirty campaign if they win the nomination not only will they have broken the party but they will have lowered the bar so far that when the McCain, Fox and Republician 527s unleash the dogs of war they will have no moral position to argue against the dirty tactics.

The Clintons have a fund raisers of their own in jail and a mountain of scandals to dig into for the media and the opposition. The fact that the Obama campaign has taken the high road willbecome obvious when senator Clinton is taken apart by the opposition.

Who will Hillary and Bill blame when they lose the General election?

Posted by: maxmcgloin | March 3, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

so why aren't republicans

patriotic?

.because they are just _U_S_E_R_S_ as a way of life...

no wonder they are the "haves and have mores"


they have taken _your_ jobs and shipped them overseas


and are busy selling AMERICA out from underneath of you


and you AMERICANS have sold your country for three magic beans with the


labels "homophobia," "patriotic," and "babykillers," written on them with gold lettering....whilst ignoring the fact that


babys men women and children are being killed in IRAQ, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Mexico, Venezuela and so on with your dolleros....


you are paying BIG OIL's development costs by handing over IRAQ to them....


what you should tell the current crop of conspirators is pay my turn...


attach their properties and sue them into oblivion.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary full of WHAT!?

Posted by: sawargos | March 3, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS THE WASHINGTON POST NOT COVERING THE REVELATION OF OBAMA'S DOUBLE GAME WITH THE CANADIANS ABOUT NAFTA?

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND THE NEWSPAPER SHOULD MAKE AN EFFORT TO BE LESS PARTIAL IN THIS CONTEST. PLEASE, WE THE READERS DEMAND MORE.

SINCERELY

Posted by: carlos_melina | March 3, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Voice of the White House February 28, 2005
TBR News.org February 28, 2005

"An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove's "good friend" 'Jeff Gannon' are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator, who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR's, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a "respectable" gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.


.small problems.

seems like you all have small problems.

what's that about neh!?


wann aknow something? it's over.


Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

so bdicke1519


how about refuting me???

want to step up to the plate???


I have a couple of minutes.

come out come out whereever you are? are you in the closet with George W. and Karl Rove


playing hide the salaami....

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

For the people who think Hillary Clinton feel their pain and falling for a well written speeches; ask your self why as a Senator did she not act on the issues that caused you the pain. Hillary Clinton like George Bush will feel your pain as long as it takes for her to try to become President. See her tax returns and you will understand why she was able to contribute $5M dollars to her own campaign. If she felt your pain, why haven't she donated or given cars, houses, money to people that are in pain like Oprah. Don't be fooled by her tears, mood swings or moments of intent display of softness; she is of the same cloth wooven by the politics of promise to the midclass and obeying big business and overseas interest.

Posted by: bdicke1519 | March 3, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

grow up children.


after Nixon, no one wanted anyone that looked like a politician.

after the corrpution of the current administration, Tricky Dick is looking pretty good....John Dean, Nixon's IMPEACHMENT LAWYER, said George W. Bush deserves IMPEACHMENT more than Nixon...

after Nixon people were disturbed about anyone and anything that "seemed like it was part of the system,"

So they voted for Jimmy Carter. Honest, intelligent, hard working, forthright and not capable of holding his own against people who didn't fight fair.


Incompetent??? Hardly, he gained a peace accord most though impossible. His Habitat for Humanity is heart work at it's finest.


Jimmy Carter expected that he would be able to wield the Presidency. He didn't understand:


He's just visiting here.


This is _their_ hometown, INSIDER WASHINGTON _they_ run things...


he had to go along, or outsmart them. He did neither,


and they railroaded him.....but they killed JFK, so maybe he didn't do too badly.

.

Bill Clinton survived 8 years of them trying to throw up a roadblock on his presidency....didn't he ???


and took us from a record-high-deficit to a full General Fund.


And didn't let them talk him into attacking IRAQ in 1998....even though they killed 200 Marines to put the pressure on.


SEARCH ON PNAC Letter to Clinton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, James Baker III


it's your past and your present.


Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

All you Clintonistas who tried the Canadian/NAFTA thing, I got a little something for you; courtesy of the Canadian Star by way of nytimes.com:

23. March 3rd,
2008
5:31 pm
The Canadian government backs away from the spurious NAFTA memo.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/308919

This was a feeble attempt to help out the Republican party, by the right wing Canadian government. And Hillary tried to use it too.
Go O!"
-- Posted by He, Hussein, who has been forbidden from placing jokes in this Caucus space!

So go check the story out for yourselves, unless you want to follow your Clinton leader into the usual lies from the dark side.

Posted by: meldupree | March 3, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm feelin' it! Hillary Clinton will SHOCK the world!! She won't just win Rhode Island...
She will win Ohio!!!
She will win Texas!!

(She'll only net 7 delegates and it will be more than reversed when Wyoming and Mississippi vote within a week, but hey...spin is spin.)

Posted by: Dave20707 | March 3, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary (about her campaign momentum in recent days) "I'm just getting warmed up!"

Lovely. Thirty-five years of "experience" and yet she needs warming up on the most important campaign of her career? So much for being ready on day one.

Posted by: aromatherapy | March 3, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton voters are those females looking to broaden their gains by breaking through the glass ceiling; and, White Americans who prefer seeing an Afro-American in the kitchen of the WhiteHouse and not running the Whitehouse. It doen't matter how articulate or his compassion that he has for the American people; it is that mentality of America that have in slaved peoples minds to believe they can not reach a higher ground and exemplify their Christ within.

Posted by: bdicke1519 | March 3, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

The people on this board are mostly negative and not very issue-oriented, basically just seeing who can be the most crude - doesn't sound too much like the Obama people are embracing Obama's supposed 'Unity," "Change," and "Hope" rhetoric that he was spewing all over the campaign trail. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 3, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Why is Obama so shamed or afraid of his own middle name. Does it tell a story that he doesn't want told. No other candidate for public office in U.S. history has ever had an issue with his or her given name except Barak Hussein Obama. Whats to hide?

At his age, he has had plenty of time to legally change if he didn't like it.

Thom

Posted by: thommorin | March 3, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

That picture and the story tells it all. Most of Sen. Clinton's supporters are older, white women. Sure, the sensible shoe generation vote more than others, but they will never be a mojority. Modivate the rest of the voters to actually come out and vote, and she will lose every time.

Let's hope Obama does well enough Tuesday to put an end to Sen. Clinton's tired campaign once and for all.

Posted by: dcwsano | March 3, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The most disappointment I have right now is Bill Richardson trying to shove Hillary out of the race.

Hillary, after Ohio and Texas and the other states, will be very close to Obama in delegate account. There are still 10 more states to go after that.

Obama supporters keep talking about 11 states - I am talking about Hillary has a million more votes than Obama, and she is getting 52% of the real Democrat votes - and Obama may go down in a pile of shady/murky Chicago deals in the next few week.

Why would a viable Democratic candidate get out now? And, like the Republicans have done, diminished their candidates down to one that wants to reinstate the draft and another that is far behind.

We have two viable candidates - and one may slip and fall (Obama) - But Obama does not have a very good tract record for truthfulness right now and it is showing.

Let's wait a few weeks and see how things go for Obama and Hillary. We don't have to be in a rush. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 3, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

In 1975, lawyerHillary attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280

So this is "working with children"???

This woman is a maniac.

Posted by: info23 | March 3, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz, you could have saved yourself and the readers a lot of time if you just said, I don't want Hillary to win.

But, you haven't read the whole story about this campaign yet, and it is now being told, about Obama/Rezko/Auchi/Rev. Wrignt/Farrakun/ his poor track record in the Illinois senate.

Stay tuned. Nearly everyone is now looking at Obama and taking his shady/murky past seriously. I think the undecided voters will probably make a big difference - they weren't swooning and mesmerized, and hopefully they are figuring out that Obama is clearly a "roll of the dice."

A vote for Obama now is a vote for McCain in the fall. Obama cannot survive the kind of scrutiny that he is now getting. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 3, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

grow up children.


after Nixon, no one wanted anyone that looked like a politician.

after the corrpution of the current administration, Tricky Dick is looking pretty good....John Dean, Nixon's IMPEACHMENT LAWYER, said George W. Bush deserves IMPEACHMENT more than Nixon...

after Nixon people were disturbed about anyone and anything that "seemed like it was part of the system,"

So they voted for Jimmy Carter. Honest, intelligent, hard working, forthright and not capable of holding his own against people who didn't fight fair.


Incompetent??? Hardly, he gained a peace accord most though impossible. His Habitat for Humanity is heart work at it's finest.


Jimmy Carter expected that he would be able to wield the Presidency. He didn't understand:


He's just visiting here.


This is _their_ hometown, INSIDER WASHINGTON _they_ run things...


he had to go along, or outsmart them. He did neither,


and they railroaded him.....but they killed JFK, so maybe he didn't do too badly.

.

Bill Clinton survived 8 years of them trying to throw up a roadblock on his presidency....didn't he ???


and took us from a record-high-deficit to a full General Fund.


And didn't let them talk him into attacking IRAQ in 1998....even though they killed 200 Marines to put the pressure on.


SEARCH ON PNAC Letter to Clinton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, James Baker III


it's your past and your present.


the republicans are outposting democrats here 2 to 1


why is that?


because they are afraid of Hillary RODthem Clinton


because she knows who they are and where they live and how much they are stealing.

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse


Please read this:

"I found this story about a case where Hillary used her knowledge of child abuse to get a man off of rape charges to be very sad and disturbing. Of course, it was her job as a lawyer to provide a competent defense, but it seems like she may have crossed a line by aggressively attacking the 12-year-old girl"s character.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

She seems to have carried that tactic with her when she actively participated in smear campaigns against the credibility of the victims of her husband"s harassment, even after he was caught lying under oath in a court of law. Making women terrified to report sexual harassment out of fear of being publicly humiliated and having their careers destroyed is a terrible role model for women, as is attacking the character of 12-year-old rape victims.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280


Posted by: info23 | March 3, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

After the garbage that Hillary has been pulling on Obama, I hope she loses big in Ohio and Texas. There is no way I'd vote for her; I won't for McCain or that idiot Nader either.

Posted by: camera_eye_1 | March 3, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Remember, Obama spoke of a unified country, regardless of race, gender, religion, creed or color; Hillary interjected race and gender in the campaign to play on Americas deep racism to get the votes of the democrats that voted for George W. Bush; and, sadly its working.

Posted by: bdicke1519 | March 3, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama's willingness to do or say anything to get elected is beginning to catch up to him. It is possible that Hillary could get the majority of delegates that is required. After hearing from Obama's supporters, I hope she continues. I would hate to think that such immaturity would determine this election. Maybe we should reconsider the voting age requirements.

Posted by: gdex2r | March 3, 2008 04:56 PM
-------------------------------

Yeah!

Right on!!

Just what we need: a menopausocracy.

Posted by: mnjam | March 3, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I really cannot understand how anyone who dislikes the divisiveness and stubborness of Bush is willing to vote for the divisiveness and stubborness of the Clintons instead. Do we really want to go through more of The Clintons Vs The " Right Wing Conspiracy" gridlock?? Why put the country through more of that?

Posted by: cmsatown | March 3, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Hate to break it to everyone, but this approach has already been tried in this campaign by John Edwards and we all know where it got him.

The media wants this thing to keep going; this is why some are continuing to suggest Clinton has a real chance.

The fact is, unless Hillary wins TX and OH by HUGE margins tomorrow her chances of winning the Democratic nomination are very slim.

If she loses one of these two states or wins only be small percentages in both, she will only be harming the Democratic party's chances of winning in November by remaining in the race.

The Republicans are rooting like crazy for Clinton because they understand that the longer she stays in this thing, the better their chances come November.

Posted by: gthstonesman | March 3, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voters are true democrats .
Obamma (aka wannabee JFK /MLK/ AND FREAKING JESUS)and his flock of sheep voters along with Oprahs creepy racists phoneys who actually are 60% enemy republican INDEPENDANTS pretending to be UNITED with democrats until november when they conveniently switch their votes for PANAMA immigrant McCain.
As for creepy Pelosi and her gang backing creepy Wink Wink NAFTA Obama - will not Impeach Bush - prooves my point.

Posted by: ashchann | March 3, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Clinton haters who know not what they talk about. What a bunch of human floatsam.

Posted by: 1ken | March 3, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

so McGovern was denigrated so that Nixon wouldn't have to compete with someone that would have kicked his hind end...

and it's happening again.

they can take their choice, support Barack and sink McCain or sink McCain and support Barack...


a president can't do more than insider washington lets them, unless that president knows who is who


on day one. That's why Hillary is the one that insider washington doesnot want in office.


insider washington doesn't want to lose their seat at the pig trough...

wly34 is a fine example,


look at their posts, all innuendo


no actual intelligence.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

so who is putting out the emotion based posts here???


the ones that are pure unadulterated feelings of slime?


the repulsive scammers


the ones that use homophobia, even though

the EXECUTIVE BRANCH is rife with Homosexuality...not that I care, but I dislike hypocrisy intensely.

SEARCH on George W. Bush, Victor Ashe, Lips, Gannon Guckert, gay

if you visit the oval office you might not want to sit down there this year...

these guys want AMERICA on it's knees.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

From a new article: "Some people in Texas get to vote twice, and that could help Obama. In Texas, 126 of the delegates at stake are decided in the primary, but once the polls close Tuesday night, Texas also holds caucuses, where those who cast ballots in the primary get to vote again. Another 67 delegates will be allocated in those caucuses. Obama has done extremely well in states with caucuses."

Nothing like voting twice legally. And the Demos set it up. Now she is threatening to sue the Democratic party in Texas for laws that they set up. All this because she thinks she is "the anointed one"

I will gladly go to the caucus tomorrow night to give my second vote to Obama. Anyone who has done the stupid things that she has done in this campaign, deserves to never be heard from again.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Phhhllllleezzz Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont. I can't stand one more week of the Clintons much less four more years!!!!!!

Posted by: Lilly1 | March 3, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

There's a Chinese proverb that we should know the truth from facts: the bottom line here is that Hillary Clinton is factually the best qualified candidate by virtue of her well- documented, original and enlightened approach to a myriad of vitally important issues as US Senator from NY. I've studied her positions on international, domestic, economic and social issues which, incidentally, are available for anyone to peruse on the Internet. As far as I'm concerned, the record speaks for itself. I know his won't convince anyone ideologically predisposed differently to her positions. And I write not to prove or disprove what the other candidate says, but write what I do know. NY State voters elected and reelected her and not without cause: Just as few short months ago she stood as the justifiably odds on choice as nominee.
What cause would there be to for voters withhold their support now? Believe me; I for sure have neither the wit, nor words, to forcefully convince anyone of my choice for President: I only tell you that which I and, hopefully, you yourselves do know. If we, all of us, have not lost our reason please, for the good of the nation, support her!

Posted by: jstein9811 | March 3, 2008 01:45
------------------------------------------

SHE IS RUNNING A TERRIBLE CAMPAIGN AND YOU DON'T NEED LOT OF RESEARCH TO SEE THAT.

This is politics - not graduate school.

Don't vote for a loser.

Posted by: mnjam | March 3, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I am a longtime democrat, and I now hate Hillary Clinton for how she is running her campaing. I will vote for McCain if she is the democratic nominee.

Posted by: GeorgHerbet | March 3, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I realize that the Hillary Campaign is in financial trouble but judging by her false attack on Obama, it seems like she's now working with the Republicans to hurt our chances in the next election. Perhaps the Republicans made her an offer she could not refuse?

Hillary Clinton only cares about herself. She can't win the nomination fairly. The voters have rejected her. She's now destroying the Democratic party with her vindictive politics. With traitors like her in the party, we don't need the Republicans to defeat us, Hillary Clinton is doing it on behalf of the Republicans!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | March 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

so much for the alleged 'anti-hillary' bias. This story reads like some kind of political PORN: "She is the embodiment of the voters she now hopes will save her candidacy." just give us a break.

'Dan Balz's Take' should just be renamed as 'Dan Balz Just Came in his Shorts for Hillary'

Posted by: muaddib_7 | March 3, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Hillary's husband Bill sign NAFTA into Law, which sent ten of thousands of Ohio manufacturing jobs out of the country? Where was she when Bill signed NAFTA and help destroy American manufacturing jobs?

Is it true that Hillary didn't read the Bill pertaining to the Iraqi War before signing yes? It is true and Hillary is a clown to assert that she has foreign policy experience.

She has lack of judgment and now she has lack of class proven by this trailer trash campaign that she headed.

Years ago, people either loved of hated the Clintons. Now they hate the Clintons after their dirty campaign.

If McCain agreed to stop this terrible war and form a partnership with the United Nations, then he would win.

Since McCain has adopted a losing strategy of embracing the Iraqi War, which America dislikes, then he will lose to the people oriented Harvard Scholar Barack Obama.

Posted by: dwashington1 | March 3, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The last days of this campaign as reminded me alot of the last days of the Iowa campaign when the media were so gleeful that Obama was losing momentum and Hillary was gaining. We all remembered what happened in Iowa. The media and Hillary Clinton are in for a big surprise tomorrow.

Posted by: lumi21us | March 3, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

mondherm: get real. The fact is that Clinton, Obama, and McCain are all bright, intelligent people who are well versed in domestic finance as well as foreign affairs. McCain may be more of a warhawk than clinton and she may be more of a chickenhawk than obama, but they are all quality politicians. We Americans are in a good place with these candidates. This is the best group we've had to choose from in my lifetime.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | March 3, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Everyone should just save gas and stay home since CNN and Fox have decided for you."

Too late, I have already voted. Now off to our caucus tomorrow night to vote again. Yep, Hillary helped to set up the Texas democratic election laws. Now she threatens to sue her own party in Texas.
Now, I'm using them to vote twice for Obama.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse


Enron and Bill Clinton http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/28/12723.shtml
Subject: How do you change what is wrong , when you are a part of the problem the Influence of Lobbyists funds has caused in America ?


February 16, 2000 Issue Brief #137 http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137

The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal , Clinton
Administration's own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses , all ignored because of Lobbyist influence . At least we could have had some fees paid on duty free Imports to make up the losses in our SS and Medicare systems , but I guess that was not acceptable by the Multi-National lobbyists , hum ???

why didn't Senator Hillary Clinton vote against the Bankruptcy law in 2005 , that gave the mortgage lenders the power to be brazen in altering the standard lending practices of the 20 % down traditional home loans , to the ones thats caused this crisis that we Tax payers get to pay for in Stimulus packages ??

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/44/

Posted by: ajironworks | March 3, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

They're in the Clinton Bubble.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse


The Media is still trying to pick the candidate before we vote.

Everyone should just save gas and stay home since CNN and Fox have decided for you.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 3, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "And the Canadian memos.

About how Obama is bashing NAFTA, but telling the Canadians not to worry."

Do you ever read or watch the news. Even on this thread it is posted that the Canadian mentioned denies this. It never happened. I saw the Canadian denying it myself on the news. Where were you??

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

This piece is a very strong endorsement of Clinton for President: "She will lift them up" if elected president. Do you really believe that. I think she'll walk over them again. Ohio didn't go down the tubes in the past seven years alone!
I have to think that this is truly bad reporting. I mean "She found her voice in New Hampshire...". She said she found her voice in New Hampshire, and it was the voice of the people. Come on, not only trite but saccharine. Report, don't sell; that's not your job.

Posted by: rarignac | March 3, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Subject: The Clintons' Terror Pardons


what about that 3 o'clock phone call that Bill Clinton took in 1998 that told him and Hillary that Osama was cited on 3 different occasions and Bill and Hillary could have struck him but choose not , which proved to be a Big Mistake , so How can Hillary say that They will be able to make the right Decision at 3 o'clock in the morning when the red phone rings , when they didn't last time ?? Why should the Clintons get a pass on all their mistakes from the past , just to rewrite the history books , and get another shot at what needs a New perspective in American Future History making ??????????? If Hilary is catch in the position of having to cover for Bill at the same time trying to make a decision about what to do for America , will it turn out like this last time did ??? American needs to know why the force of striking bin laden was turned down at the same time The Monica Scandal was going on , was it a Political move that then led to the disasters we face today ??? America needs to be sure who we vote for to make sure the same mistakes don't keep happening over and over ????????

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic


On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

The Clintons' Terror Pardons
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=Letters

By DEBRA BURLINGAME
February 12, 2008; Page A17

Posted by: ajironworks | March 3, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

We all wait in anticipation as a_smallone sits on high and dispenses his ancient wisdom to us wide-eyed little children.

Again...put down the whiskey bottle and feed your cats.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

a big one, do your parents know that you are on the computer without their permission?

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I agree Professor BS...U.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

And the Canadian memos.

About how Obama is bashing NAFTA, but telling the Canadians not to worry.

Is that the kind of change we're looking for? Somebody who says one thing to win the Blue Collar vote, but then turns around and tells a NAFTA member everything is O.K.?

He has ads bashing Hillary on NAFTA, but he says he says he'll most likely keep it.

It is reckless to stir the hopes of the Blue Collar worker, and anti-trade sentiment, if you're not anti-trade.

Just talk the straight talk. We need that after four years of Bush.

Hillary has been much more forthright in her position on NAFTA.

Hillary should stay in the race for one reason, the longer she stays in the race, the more we realize that Obama is not the change agent he has held himself out to be.

Posted by: camasca | March 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

man in black you've seen my post about Hillary's context


you want to continue to point away from that?


youare republican, without a doubt....


what did I say about Hillary already having received that phone call???


have you read PNAC Letter to Clinton or are you just using their talking points because you can't think


you're an average overweight w/o a clue american voting homophobia because the gawd users on televison aka televangelists told you to???

move on you don't have a clue.

Voice of the White House February 28, 2005
TBR News.org February 28, 2005

"An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove's "good friend" 'Jeff Gannon' are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator, who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR's, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a "respectable" gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.


.small problems.

seems like you all have small problems.

what's that about neh!?


wann aknow something? it's over.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

1) Hillary had a lead until people started voting. Not quite as bad as Howard Dean but still her 'lead' was a media creation.

2) Because the Republican race wasn't much of one, the media has had its full attention on Clinton-Obama, and the recent "shift" back towards Clinton despite 11 straight losses is also a media creation. They hope will keep this race going so their ratings will continue to hold.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | March 3, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

THERE ARE MANY WOMEN WHO ARE CAPABLE OF LEADING THE USA. HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

SHE'S MORE A CHIMP THAN A CHAMP.

SHE'S ALWAYS BEEN RIDING HER HUSBAND'S POPULARITY AS A FORMER PRESIDENT.

THE SOONER SHE DROPS OUT, THE BETTER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. AND VICE VERSA.

Posted by: mondherm | March 3, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Fair enough JakeD. Just having fun..sorry she hurt you. Them Vegas girls are rough.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

we may see OSAMA coming to white house to meet his counterpart

Posted by: jpainumkal | March 3, 2008 05:42 PM

--------------

Too late, OSAMA already met with dick Cheney in the dick's undisclosed location.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | March 3, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

grow up children.


after Nixon, no one wanted anyone that looked like a politician.

after the corrpution of the current administration, Tricky Dick is looking pretty good....John Dean, Nixon's IMPEACHMENT LAWYER, said George W. Bush deserves IMPEACHMENT more than Nixon...

after Nixon people were disturbed about anyone and anything that "seemed like it was part of the system,"

So they voted for Jimmy Carter. Honest, intelligent, hard working, forthright and not capable of holding his own against people who didn't fight fair.


Incompetent??? Hardly, he gained a peace accord most though impossible. His Habitat for Humanity is heart work at it's finest.


Jimmy Carter expected that he would be able to wield the Presidency. He didn't understand:


He's just visiting here.


This is _their_ hometown, INSIDER WASHINGTON _they_ run things...


he had to go along, or outsmart them. He did neither,


and they railroaded him.....but they killed JFK, so maybe he didn't do too badly.

.

Bill Clinton survived 8 years of them trying to throw up a roadblock on his presidency....didn't he ???


and took us from a record-high-deficit to a full General Fund.


And didn't let them talk him into attacking IRAQ in 1998....even though they killed 200 Marines to put the pressure on.


SEARCH ON PNAC Letter to Clinton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, James Baker III


it's your past and your present.


Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons sat and watched on TV as the prarie swept building on Mt. Carmel was punctured with the nozzle of a US military tank, filled with fuel, ignited by ATF Officers, and then the Clintons watched as 70 men, women, and children had been gunned down with automatic weapons as the attempted to flee with their clothes aflame.

Did the phones ring for them to stop the slaughter................

No, because the Clintons didn't care. It wouldn't be acceptable for even a rabid pack of dogs to be treated such a manner.

And how is she expected to handle problems like Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, nevermind wars in two different countries?

Did you hear Bush's response to Turkey invading the Kurds in Iraq... that's the same manner Hillary will deal with such matters.

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama Ahead of Clinton 14% in Texas, Up 8% in Ohio; McCain Comfortable
2/23/08

Polls, polls, how about this latest. Who do we believe?? Obama, Clinton, McCain and months of accusations, barbs are all getting to be too much. I'm beginning to think Mexico has the best idea in presidential elections. One six year term, never to be seen again.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Press on Hillary. When the party moves its bowels. you and you p.o.s. "husband" will be eliminated from national politics for good.

Posted by: sperrico | March 3, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a real case against her in Cali. The guy has got her on tape lying about her fundraising. She's gonna wish she had Rezko...a claim that's been investigated for over a year with nothing.

Do your homework folks...she's been part of the problem for years. She'll fight alright...for what she thinks she deserves.

And White House experience...she didn't even have the security clearance to sit in on any of those decisions. That's why she does not want to release her schedule while in the WH...because she was just the First Lady who attempted and failed to tackle the Health Care problem...ribbon cutting...hospital openings...

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

grow up children.


after Nixon, no one wanted anyone that looked like a politician.

after the corrpution of the current administration, Tricky Dick is looking pretty good....John Dean, Nixon's IMPEACHMENT LAWYER, said George W. Bush deserves IMPEACHMENT more than Nixon...

after Nixon people were disturbed about anyone and anything that "seemed like it was part of the system,"

So they voted for Jimmy Carter. Honest, intelligent, hard working, forthright and not capable of holding his own against people who didn't fight fair.


Incompetent??? Hardly, he gained a peace accord most though impossible. His Habitat for Humanity is heart work at it's finest.


Jimmy Carter expected that he would be able to wield the Presidency. He didn't understand:


He's just visiting here.


This is _their_ hometown, INSIDER WASHINGTON _they_ run things...


he had to go along, or outsmart them. He did neither,


and they railroaded him.....but they killed JFK, so maybe he didn't do too badly.

.

Bill Clinton survived 8 years of them trying to throw up a roadblock on his presidency....didn't he ???


and took us from a record-high-deficit to a full General Fund.


And didn't let them talk him into attacking IRAQ in 1998....even though they killed 200 Marines to put the pressure on.


SEARCH ON PNAC Letter to Clinton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, James Baker III


it's your past and your present.


man in black you've seen my post about Hillary's context


you want to continue to point away from that?


youare republican, without a doubt....


what did I say about Hillary already having received that phone call???


have you read PNAC Letter to Clinton or are you just using their talking points because you can't think


you're an average overweight w/o a clue american voting homophobia because the gawd users on televison aka televangelists told you to???

move on you don't have a clue.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The jokes are just writing themselves today.

jpainumkal OBAMA and OSAMA -- pure genius. If you could put that brilliant mind to use writing cross-word puzzles, or scripts for Rush Limbaugh you could make a pretty decent living.

Obama and Osama? jpainumkal and ignoramus.

Posted by: JPRS | March 3, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is 110 delegates behind. Her chances are slim to none that she can come back after 11 losses in a row.

'Hillary Clinton must win the delegates from both Texas and Ohio by substantial margins or her campaign is effectively over. And that is the line that needs to be repeated over and over heading into tomorrow.

what Clinton was supposed to do was keep a lead heading into Texas and Ohio so that she could put Obama away there.

Of course, she didn't keep a lead. She didn't even keep Obama to a slim lead.

So now, without blowout victories tomorrow, it's Obama that's getting closer to his goal by holding off any substantial delegate gains.'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/3/9844/04828/41/467789

Posted by: kevinschmidt | March 3, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

beware OBAMA and OSAMA are very very close.
If OBAMA comes to power we may see OSAMA coming to white house to meet his counterpart

Posted by: jpainumkal | March 3, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

frank:

I think it's a relevant question to ask someone who tries to "shame" me, and questions my "intellect, deceny [sic] and sense of class -- did you see that she basically told me to "[t]urn off the right-wing radio, grow up and join the reality based community"?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Dearest a_Bigone,

My technique isn't about fear... as your posts are about the Hillary 'phone calls in the middle of the night' which is directly related to the Nazi Goebbles way of influencing the masses.

I simple lay out basic truths.

And by the way... those phone calls at 3 am weren't as much about problems as much about Bill's women in wait.

You loser

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 3, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama's position on NAFTA is the same as Hillary, he wants to keep it, but modify it to better serve America.

Obama's current position on the War is the same as Hillary, don't do anything now, pull out troops later.

Yet Obama's ads are aimed at retribution against her. She was around when NAFTA was passed, she should be punished.

She didn't stop Bush going the war, she should be punished.

This in spite of having the same current position with her.

An important tool of human relations is forgiveness.

Many Republicans voted for the war, many Republicans voted for NAFTA.

How will Obama treat them? How do you reach across the aisle in a civil manner if you seek to punish people for their past action?

Posted by: camasca | March 3, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is bad news, but the worse news is that Obama is beginning to be exposed as an empty shell and a far left loon. He'd better shut Farrakhan, his minister in Chicago, and that lunatic wife of his up in a hurry. The guy is beginning to scare me a bit. One wonders if this is the best that the Democrats can offer us - certainly after 8 years of Bush this should have been a slamdunk. But, as per usual, the Democratic Party is suicidal.

Posted by: birvin9999 | March 3, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

theman in black -- 91 U.S. "Senate" endorsements? That is hilarious.

As far as Clinton "the fighter" goes, yes she is a fighter -- for her political interest. At times when it really mattered and when she had the influence to make real change -- on that board of Wal-Mart, or giving Bush a blank check to go into what will be a $2 trillion dollar war -- she didn't fight.

What matters is not so much whether a person is a "fighter" and "tough" -- but whether they are tough in a way that reflects the interests of the American people in the broadest sense possible. That may have been Hillary Clinton for a few fleeting moments when she first got out of law school, but that Clinton has been MIA for a few decades now.

Posted by: JPRS | March 3, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

it's interesting isn't it????

the rot in the United States ECONOMY, from sending all of our money into war profiteers pockets


has extended to NORTHERN VIRGINIA
____________________________________________________

WP Article: "Foreclosure Auctioneer's Lonely Task,"
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 22, 2008

"Lot of interest out here this morning," Crossley muttered. No one showed up for the auction of 7 homes that were in foreclosure.

It wasn't always such a lonely job. When Crossley became an auctioneer two years ago for Purcellville-based Nectar Projects, foreclosure sales were few, and they would regularly draw packs of investors armed with cash and eager to bid. Now it's rare for anyone to show up. In the past three months, Crossley has conducted auctions on some 200 properties in Northern Virginia, and he has sold one.

_____________________________________________________


what does that mean, relative to the discussion regarding Obama and Hillary ???


that the people who caused this, currently deadlocking Congress and running things for their private benefit in WASHINGTON through the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

are trying to keep things status quo, maintain their grip on the cash flow...


not knowing what is going on in WASHINGTON, and saying that those who want to bring up specific examples _OF_THAT_ are talking about the past scares me.


I see a junior congressman, buying into and using what the repulsive scammers are selling as a way of getting elected


w/o regard to what his election will mean to the people.


you want to know what will happen? look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.


If we had acted 30 years ago on his very good ideas, there would be no energy problem, probably greenhouse gases would be under control and our economy would still be booming and manufacturing would still be in_country...


but Carter was backstabbed, because he wanted to "play fair,"

after Nixon, everyone wanted someone that would "play fair,"


unfortunately, Jimmy didn't know how to make sure the bullies played fair as well...


do I need to paint a picture ????

these guys don't "play fair,"


they have male prostitutes spend the night at the white house and use homophobia to herd the gomers...


they're trying to get you to back the Hubert Humphrey of the Democratic pack...


read up on it.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Although I voted for Obama, I don't see him winning either Texas or Ohio. I just have the sneaky suspicion that the polls are wrong on this one and Hillary's margin of victory be 5 - 10%. I also wonder about the "conspiracy theory" that cropps up every now and then, that Republicans are voting for Obama, knowing that in November they will vote their party. Why do that? Because they believe Hillary would have a better chance of beating any Republican. Even if some states don't allow voting across party lines, it could have been a well thought out strategy in time to switch party allegiances -- and switch back for general election.

That might also explain why McCain got so few votes, compared to Obama, in the Potomac primaries.

Posted by: pdgray7 | March 3, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

What we know about Hillary:

She & Bill ran away from Universal Health Care in 1993 to save their political career.

Hillary & Bill supported NAFTA so they could hold on to their political careers at the expense for their supporters.

Hillary voted to invade Iraq as it was the thing to do and to hold on to her political career.

Hillary can be counted upon to support Hillary over all else.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 3, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD...you're on the wrong blog pervert.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

The above is a list of Politicos that didn't hear us during this past Mid-Term Election.

I the event that they stubble upon reading this, We the People are tired of Washington DC being about 'The highest bidder creates the laws'...

We want our Democracy back!!!

Obama appears to be the only choice, that much is plain as day.

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 3, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

so McGovern was denigrated so that Nixon wouldn't have to compete with someone that would have kicked his hind end...

and it's happening again.

they can take their choice, support Barack and sink McCain or sink McCain and support Barack...


a president can't do more than insider washington lets them, unless that president knows who is who


on day one. That's why Hillary is the one that insider washington doesnot want in office.


insider washington doesn't want to lose their seat at the pig trough...


Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Please understand (those of you who are extremely uninformed) that HRC did not win Michigan. Unless, of course, you want to adopt Soviet Union style elections and insist that after pledging to keep her name off the ballot (as the other candidates honorably did) she went back on her word and with the help of her supporter, Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, went against the Dem. party and put her name back on the ballot. Please explain to me how she won an election that never truly took place between candidates? Please explain to me how, as an American, you can even accept a farcical vote with only one name on the ballot? Your lack of dignity and pride in what so many of our ancestors fought for is appalling. And to top it all off, you call it Democratic! There is no fair vote if there is no competition. It amazes me how quickly you are willing to give up our rights as citizens to such a sham election. Please, leave and form a communist society somewhere else. .....and take HRC with you if she continues to insist that she somehow won Michigan. I'm ashamed that this is even being considered.

Iris Jones

Posted by: ljwalczak | March 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Is this a publishing house or a blog? Do you guys live alone or what? Cat? Maybe four? Cut and paste and cryptic conspiracy talk does not make for interesting political discussion. Put down the whiskey bottle.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

vegasgirl1:

How old are you?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey vegas girl. Don't talk to me, talk to a veteran. BTW, some posted about Clinton's lack of care for the military.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

when John Negroponte was made the Director of National Intelligence with the ability to excuse any company from being audited or reporting revenues....


what companies were excluded?


included within those companies were companies that the Whitehouse families profit from? or their families families or CRONYS ????

Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, KBR, DynCorp, BLACKWATER


did not have to disclose.

is there any part of this administration that does not scream


___CONFLICT____OF______INTEREST____ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


can we try these thieves and then hang them for each major crime of treason ????


.if convicted of course.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, I hope this is over after tomorrow- I can't stand to listen to the biatch Clinton any more. Listening to her for 4 years would be enough to drive Americans insane. I'm a Dem, but will vote for McBushCain over Billary if Billary wins.

Posted by: bushisacrook | March 3, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I am disgusted at the venom displayed by my fellow Democrats towards Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing to deserve that. What's wrong with Obama posters that so many are so damned self-righteous, arrogant and nasty?"

In fact I am surprised at some of the remarks made too. I thought that all Democrats thought the Clintons could do no wrong. It is refreshing to see that not all worshipped the ground that they fouled.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

People who's emotions, ideas, philosophies, and positions change with the wind (Bill & Hillary) deserve what they get.

A bunch of people are tired of these guys and just can't wait to see them gone...you're right! But its not just that they're gone. They've been beat by someone that we did not expect and in a way that makes many of us proud to be American again. Sorry that it pains you so much.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

or how about the continuing CONFLICT OF INTERESTs that occurs as


you children are distracted by the rumor mongerers ????


the current DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE is knee deep in IRAN CONTRA CO DEFENDANT friendships....


CRONYism.

"John Michael McConnell, the retired vice admiral slated to become America's new top spy, [has some] longtime associations [which] may cause him headaches during Senate confirmation hearings," Newsweek.com notes."One such tie is with another former Navy admiral, John Poindexter, the IRAN CONTRA DEFENDANT, convicted of multiple felons, and pardoned by the current president by electoral frauds' father.....George H.W. Bush, figure who started the controversial 'Total Information Awareness' program at the Pentagon in 2002."

On February 13, 2002, Americans were warned that our nation was facing the threat of danger to homeland security. Three hours later it happened, but nobody told America.

That day, John M. Poindexter was appointed Director of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office.


Meet America's New Big Brother

Who's John Poindexter?
A retired Navy Admiral, John Poindexter lost his job as National Security Adviser under Ronald Reagan, and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. [1]

What's the Information Awareness Office (IAO)?

It's a new office created by the Pentagon agency DARPA after 9/11 to gather intelligence through electronic sources like the internet, phone, and fax lines.
Why did John Poindexter get the job?
He was the Vice President of Syntek Technologies, a government contractor.

Syntek and Poindexter worked for years with DARPA to develop Genoa, a surveillance device that's a combination cutting-edge search engine, sophisticated information harvesting program", and a "peer-to-peer" file sharing system. Kind of a military-grade Google/Napster for use in instant analysis of electronic data.

What was Iran-Contra all about?

Iran was holding American hostages. President Reagan said we would not negotiate with terrorists. At the same time, the CIA wanted to support a rebel army in the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. Congress said no.

So John Poindexter, along with Oliver North and many others, went behind President Reagan's back (supposedly) and sold weapons to the Iranians (illegally), then took the money they made and funneled it to the brutal "Contra" army that they built in Central America (also illegally). See [1]

Read some of the Ollie North / John Poindexter emails that they unsuccessfully tried to destroy
From CNN Interactive

John Poindexter isn't the only Iran-Contra conspirator to be appointed to a high-level position.

More Iran-Contra figures who now hold top government posts....there are six [6] in the WHITEHOUSE....former felons...conspiracists. OH MY !!!!

Why didn't I hear about his appointment on the news?

Very few newspapers and virtually no TV stations announced Poindexter's appointment. Apparently they didn't consider it "newsworthy".

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Obama's religion (that's CHRISTIANITY) is not in doubt -- but your intellect, deceny and sense of class are.
Shame on you, JakeD. Turn off the right-wing radio, grow up and join the reality based community.

wky34 wrote:
They want to strangle the military, do not want to back them in any way, and do everything they can to hobble them. As you recall, Bill would not serve."

Are you kidding? Have you checked Bush's military record, and how badly he has treated our soldiers?
What I wrote to you, also.
God bless you poor, little deluded Bush enablers ...

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | March 3, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"I am disgusted at the venom displayed by my fellow Democrats towards Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing to deserve that. What's wrong with Obama posters that so many are so damned self-righteous, arrogant and nasty?"

Do you not realize that you can turn that statement around and make it about the Clinton supporters on this thread??

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has already been there when that 3:00 A.M.


call came 200 Marines were used as bait to get Bill Clinton off the toilet to attack Iraq

read PNAC Letter to Clinton and put things in the proper context scam

artists, neocon artists

grow up. you are the dinosaurs that will be the next fossil fuel

.FOAD.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

You go Hill! Senator Clinton is a fighter. She is tough, experienced, and knows how to lead. She is hitting her message right on. People are waking up from dreamland and realizing they need a tough, strong leader as president, not someone who just gives good speeches and is smart and appeals to people emotionally. Ohio is getting real. Texas is getting real. The election is about real people, real problems, real needs. Hillary is BACK and will WIN!

Posted by: roger321 | March 3, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The time for Hillary to worry abou NAFTA was when she and Bill were approving it.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 3, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

For at least two years before the property purchases, news articles had raised questions about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and contracts. There had also been reports that the F.B.I. was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme involving a state hospital board to which Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments.

Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business.

As a result, said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association in Chicago, Mr. Obama "should have been on high alert

Posted by: bnw173 | March 3, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Hillary did not fight for Universal Health Care in 1993 like she is fighting Obama now. I understand though she had to save Bill's & her political career back in 1993.

Hillary! U can count on her to not count on her.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 3, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

CNN reports that Hugo Chavez allegedly gave recently FARC rebels $300M, and bought 50Kgs of Uranium (most likely for Iran).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/03/ecuador.colombia/index.html

Can somebody please explain why are Senator Barack Hussein Obama supporters visiting and staying with Hugo Chavez? Please know that Chavez has supporters in the United States including at the U.S. Congress.

Maru Angarita
My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/

Posted by: MaruAngarita | March 3, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I am disgusted at the venom displayed by my fellow Democrats towards Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing to deserve that. What's wrong with Obama posters that so many are so damned self-righteous, arrogant and nasty?

Posted by: davidscott1 | March 3, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Hillary can make her concession at her campaign headquarters in New York-SNL...then maybe someone can smack the black off of that guy in black face.

How come Amy doesn't wear a fat suit. Remember Obama's half white...no need on the black face old schoolers! Hopefully they'll cancel the show along with her campaign.

I think 30 years of that stale Canadian is enough.


Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It has become tiresome to hear from people like vaidyatk and the rest of the Clinton camp that Senator Clinton's political misfortunes are the fault of the media. Is it the fault of the media that Hillary Clinton squandered every advantage that she had going for her? The Clinton name and the power behind it -- the money -- the double digit lead in the polls. Is it the fault of the media that Senator Obama comes across as likable and gives inspirational speeches while Senator Clinton complains about his rhetoric and then gives uninspiring speeches about her 35 years of "experience" herself? Is it the fault of the media that Senator Obama has won 11 contests in a row? Is it the fault of the media that Bill Clinton put his foot in his mouth and gave the election in South Carolina to Obama? Richard Nixon blamed the media for everything too, and you and the other Clinton supporters are beginning to sound a whole lot like him.

Shakespeare wrote it. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings."

Posted by: lhummer | March 3, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's rant today about an alleged Obama's aide's conversation with a Canadian official is disgraceful. The Candian embassy just released a statement that it never intended to express the view that there was anything inconsitent between Obama's private conversation and his public statements on NAFTA. Clinton truly will say anything. True she may win in Ohio, but as Gov. Richardson said yesterday, whoever is substantially ahead in delegates after 3/4 should be the nominee. There is no way mathematically she can catch up unles she has a landslide win in Ohio and Texas and that won't happen, if she wins at all. She should get out after tomorrow.

Posted by: cdonham | March 3, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Again Jackson, Obama is not involved in any way in the Rezko trial as everyone knows. He is not charged with anything, is not involved, . But Hillary and Bill are certainly charged and involved in the upcoming trial about THEM.
Nice try.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Johnny Wang says be afraid... Arabs...be afraid...black racist...be afraid! Run to the WHITE light that is Hillary Clinton! Come on buddy...that's just sad.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA HAS AN ELECTABILITY PROBLEM

AND A REAL LIVE BELIEVABILITY PROBLEM !!!


HERE IS THE PROOF !! ENJOY !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU


Posted by: Thinker | March 3, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

theman_in_black

sounds like a repulsive scammer that is afraid


and making up a new con.

SEARCH ON Karl Rove, Goebbels, Reichstag Fire

and see how the old con still works today

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama it's 3 a.m. do you know where Tony Rezko is? Maybe Farrakhan can track him down for you!!!

Hot Blog Item for Today: Obama - Witness for the Defense?

Obama: Witness for the Defense?

Chicago Lawyers Say Sen. Barack Obama Could Be Called to Testify in the Rezko Trial

By BRIAN ROSS and AVNI PATEL


March 3, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama could be called as a witness for his longtime friend and accused Illinois fixer Tony Rezko, according to Chicago lawyers following the case.

"I think it's realistic that that could happen during the trial," said Zach Fardon, a former Chicago federal prosecutor who was part of the team that convicted former Illinois Gov. George Ryan on corruption charges.

Jury selection for Rezko, accused of bribing public officials and taking kickbacks, began this morning in a Chicago federal courtroom.

Although contributions Rezko steered to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign are cited in pretrial motions, he is unlikely to be called by prosecutors to testify about them.

Obama has said he was "unaware" of the allegedly illegal contributions Rezko insisted others make, and the Obama campaign has donated to charity some $150,000 connected to Rezko and others involved in the federal investigation.

But former prosecutor Fardon, now with the Chicago office of Latham & Watkins, says Rezko's defense lawyer could use Obama "to show that Mr. Rezko is somebody active in politics and political fundraising and there's nothing unto itself nefarious about that fact."

Rezko's lawyer, Joe Duffy, has consistently declined to comment on any aspect of the case.

While the start of the trial one day before primary elections in four key states may be a negative for the Obama campaign, Fardon says there is nothing political about the way the case has been pursued by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, best known for the perjury prosecution of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I don't think this is a politically driven indictment; I don't think this is a politically driven trial, from any perspective, designed to embarrass anyone," Fardon said.

Opening arguments in the case are expected to begin Wednesday or Thursday.


Posted by: Jackson_dem_73 | March 3, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Full of fight?" How about something else?! Her corruption accusations against O-bomb-a are RACIST, the pot calling the kettle black, as it were. As for him, he'd better wake up to the lack or reality of many of his positions. Fortunately for him, neither Hillary, W nor Magoo have much going for them, either. Step up, O-bomb-a but don't step in! Leave that to the more "experienced," W, Hillary and Magoo.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | March 3, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Frank, a typical Clinton supporter. Doesn't know the difference between a senator and a representative. Just as long as they continue to "give" them something, they're happy.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The above Congressmen/women need to hear from us.

They need to hear that we want our DEMOCRACY BACK, NOW!

We the people want Life (medical), Liberty (A lobbyist free military), and the Pursuit of Happiness (Jobs to stay in the states, rather than taking bribes from corporations that cause the taxpayers to pay for the shipping costs of cisco computer systems to relocate to China)

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 3, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see Hillary to stay and fight for the nomination, she is our best chance to clean up the Bush mess. The true character of Obaba is revealing every day bit by bit,the avoiding of voting over 100 times in the senate,taking bribery from a Arab origin slum lord Rizko, changing position in secrecy about his position in NAFTA tready with Canada, a wife who admitted in public that she is a black racist,and etc. We don't know what is next,but I am sure Karl Rove is holding a lot of dirty laundry ready to attack in the general election. Don't be a fool vote for Hillary. She has been tested and everything is in the open.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | March 3, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

the man in black, Thanks for posting the list of people that will not be in Obama's cabinet.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey smart guy. Most of these folk are not in the Senate?

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

US SENATE ENDORSEMENTS FOR Sen. Hillary Rodham CLINTON
(Total 91 March 3 , 2008)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa)
Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-V.I.)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)
Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.)
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.)
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.)
Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.)
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)
Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.)
Rep. Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.)
Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.)
Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.)
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.)
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-N.J.)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.)
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.)
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio)
Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 3, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

If you Obama supports don't stop criticizing Hillary for all her low blows, racially charged suggestions, and haymaker attempts...we're going to take our ball and go home.

She's the one going negative remember. We're just your average satirically inclined, tired of the same old fools runnin' for office, with their same old games, voters!

Turn around...the wave is right in front of you...grab a board.

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

No wonder Hillary does not want these downtrodden but resilient Ohio voters to see her tax returns. Can you imagine their reaction to learning how the person who has spent 35 years "fighting" for the likes of them has been able to amass the type of fortune that allows here to write a check for $5 million to har campaign?

Posted by: dmooney | March 3, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama's willingness to do or say anything to get elected is beginning to catch up to him. It is possible that Hillary could get the majority of delegates that is required. After hearing from Obama's supporters, I hope she continues. I would hate to think that such immaturity would determine this election. Maybe we should reconsider the voting age requirements.

Posted by: gdex2r | March 3, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Time to take Meaningful Action!

E-mail your Governor's Office - Senators - House of Reps - State Senators

Tell them:
--------------------------------------
Dear Super Delegate,

I am a concerned voter. If you vote for Hillary, we the people will be force to remove you from office at the first chance we get.

Do not expect to make it through your upcoming primary. The political back scratching of fundraising has corrupted our Democratic process. The Clinton family has been at the forefront of this corruption.

We want our Democracy back.

Of the Utmost Sincerity,

_________________________
Your Name Here

--------------------------------------

Have a nice day, and thank you. :o)

E-mail addresses: www.senate.gov and www.house.gov

Posted by: theman_in_black | March 3, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

the current DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE is knee deep in IRAN CONTRA CO DEFENDANT friendships....


CRONYism.

"John Michael McConnell, the retired vice admiral slated to become America's new top spy, [has some] longtime associations [which] may cause him headaches during Senate confirmation hearings," Newsweek.com notes."One such tie is with another former Navy admiral, John Poindexter, the IRAN CONTRA DEFENDANT, convicted of multiple felons, and pardoned by the current president by electoral frauds' father.....George H.W. Bush, figure who started the controversial 'Total Information Awareness' program at the Pentagon in 2002."

On February 13, 2002, Americans were warned that our nation was facing the threat of danger to homeland security. Three hours later it happened, but nobody told America.

That day, John M. Poindexter was appointed Director of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office.


Meet America's New Big Brother

Who's John Poindexter?
A retired Navy Admiral, John Poindexter lost his job as National Security Adviser under Ronald Reagan, and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. [1]

What's the Information Awareness Office (IAO)?

It's a new office created by the Pentagon agency DARPA after 9/11 to gather intelligence through electronic sources like the internet, phone, and fax lines.
Why did John Poindexter get the job?
He was the Vice President of Syntek Technologies, a government contractor.

Syntek and Poindexter worked for years with DARPA to develop Genoa, a surveillance device that's a combination cutting-edge search engine, sophisticated information harvesting program", and a "peer-to-peer" file sharing system. Kind of a military-grade Google/Napster for use in instant analysis of electronic data.

What was Iran-Contra all about?

Iran was holding American hostages. President Reagan said we would not negotiate with terrorists. At the same time, the CIA wanted to support a rebel army in the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. Congress said no.

So John Poindexter, along with Oliver North and many others, went behind President Reagan's back (supposedly) and sold weapons to the Iranians (illegally), then took the money they made and funneled it to the brutal "Contra" army that they built in Central America (also illegally). See [1]

Read some of the Ollie North / John Poindexter emails that they unsuccessfully tried to destroy
From CNN Interactive

John Poindexter isn't the only Iran-Contra conspirator to be appointed to a high-level position.

More Iran-Contra figures who now hold top government posts....there are six [6] in the WHITEHOUSE....former felons...conspiracists. OH MY !!!!

Why didn't I hear about his appointment on the news?

Very few newspapers and virtually no TV stations announced Poindexter's appointment. Apparently they didn't consider it "newsworthy".

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

SEARCH ON Russians, October Surprise, Cater, Paris, Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush


get to know a little history.


.
...
.


first things first: shut down halliburton, bechtel, kbr, blackwater, dyncorp's involvement in IRAQ...


conscript the contractors and make them work for GSA at GS scale wages,


as a first step, seperate the thieves from the money....simple eh?

.


it's a national security issue. we don't get what we pay for. and I don't remember paying to have IRAQ's infrastructure destroyed so the citizenry couldn't protest the oil theft do you?...


take a bite out of crime, elect someone who's been there before,


and been on the receiving end of this level of dishonesty, and held their own...

.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Can you please explain how getting 55% of the vote (when uncommitted got 40%) is almost losing? (Also, do you not admit that Obama's people were encouraging everyone to vote "Uncommitted" against Hillary?) Do you believe Hillary's 50% of the vote in Florida (compared to Obama's 33%) is also "almost losing"?"

Hilarious, she refused to take her name off the ballot and un-committed got 44%. Get your facts straight. the fact that she was the only one on the ballot and un-committed got even a dozen votes makes her a LOSER. A little reasoning would be a good thing for you to try.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Thank God Republicans are above taking advantage of McCain being the Obvious Winner in our Primary.

If we were not so righteous we might be tempted to play some games on the Dimocrats. ;~)

LOL! However, we already realize it is going to be O'Billary!

Poor Edwards and Richardson. Maybe they should just go to the Prom together! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

wasted time and effort - like all the bs leading up to the superbowl. either she wins both or she's toast.

Posted by: listats | March 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I think a reminder to all is called for about the political process. This campaign for the Dem nominee is not over. Pa. is still very much in play, as well as Michigan and Florida, these SDs will be changing their tunes when they realize Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 08, and that is the most important thing for the Dem party. For many months I have tried to point out how the Repubs are trying to stop Hillary at any cost/price, by supporting Obama with money and even changing their registration and voting for Obama in the primaries. My initial estimate of 10 to 15% appears to have been way under the actual number according to results reported so far. I freely admit I did not think the Repubs had this much influence on their "FEAR" of Hillary, but am convinced more than ever that I was correct once I found out about their strategy some months ago that Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 08, and I have maintained this position for many months. The exit polling results from Texas will again confirm the Dems have little or no chance to win in the GE.

Posted by: lylepink | March 3, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake D:

So your argument is that Obama should not campaign in Georgia because someone might pick up a commercial in northern Florida?

That's a pretty lame argument.

And this is the last I will respond to you, since your fascination with middle names is obviously a bigoted/racist/xenophobic baiting technique that deserves shaming. You yourself are sufficient response to all Hillary supporters here claiming that they alone are subject to vile commentors.

Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

We'll just hope that that a silver bullet finds its mark tomorrow. Even if a couple hit (VT, TX) she'll still try to bite and scratch her way forward.

Her staff needs to go to CNN.com and play the delegate game. It all becomes very clear...win by huge margins from now on...likely chances...slim to none.

Talk about false hope!

Posted by: frank | March 3, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Dittoheads:
Be sure and vote for Hillary on tuesday. She is by far the weakest candidate in November. If Obama gets it we are cooked.

Posted by: barnardj1 | March 3, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

After the way Obama and his rabid, rude, disloyal, dishonest followers claiming to be Democrats have treated Hillary and Bill Clinton I will now be voting for Nader if Obama wins the nomination.

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The Associated Press obtained a memo written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate and attended a meeting with Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canadian officials.

Here are excerpts:

___

On February 8, CHCGO had an introductory meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic advisor of Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. While it was clear the campaign and Goolsbee himself have not been focused on Canada, he showed interest and enthusiasm for what HOM/Rioux had to say about the Canada-US relationship. He was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy. On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more "core" principles of the agreement. Should Obama win the White House, Goolsbee figures to remain a close advisor.

___

Noting anxiety among many US domestic audiences about the US economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. Consistent with CHCGO/WSHDC's analysis, he cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans. He also suggested that of the Democratic candidates, Obama has been the least protectionist (unintelligible). HOM asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist.

___

When asked about Obama's statements and position on NAFTA, Goolsbee was quick to indicate that the senator is less interested in fundamental changes to the agreement and more looking at clarifying language on labour mobility and environmental standards. Again stating that he was not an expert on the agreement, he suggested Obama wanted to work with Canada and Mexico to make labour and environment more core to the agreement.

___

As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered.


Posted by: ogdeeds | March 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say "I told you so" but:

TOLEDO, Ohio - Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested she will press on following crucial primaries Tuesday, arguing that momentum was on her side despite 11 straight losses to rival Barack Obama that have imperiled her Democratic presidential nomination bid.

Unbelievable!!

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

David2007 I read the story by Todd Spivak at Hustonpress.com. It is must reafing for those who want to pear behind the cutain, to be unhooked from the Matrix and gain some real insight into the real Barack Obama.

www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

Talk about an empty suit. Talk about someone who is perfectly willing to let others do the hard and often nasty word and then coming in later and claiming others' work as his own.

Here is a rather enlightening part of the story:

When asked about his legislative record, Obama rattles off several bills he sponsored as an Illinois lawmaker.
He expanded children's health insurance; made the state Earned Income Tax Credit refundable for low-income families; required public bodies to tape closed-door meetings to make government more transparent; and required police to videotape interrogations of homicide suspects.
And the list goes on.
It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.
Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative achievements.
Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.
The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.
Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's kingmaker.
Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio program.
I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:
"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"
"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"
"Barack Obama."
Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.
"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.
------------------------------

Obama was "appointed" as sponsor of the bills for sole purpose of making him into a vaible US Senate candidate. What Obama claims as his ability to get legislation passed had more to do with a change in the majority party in the state senate than it does with his personality.

Politically speaking, Obama is someone born on third base who thinks he hit a triple. Read the whole story to get picture of his true personality to see how he reacts to such stories.

Is this the sort of indebted pol with a short temper we want in a the most stressful and pressure pact office in the world, at this time in our history???

Posted by: jmcauli1 | March 3, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 3, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

What "experience" exactly does she have? What, being a politician's wife? OK, many can attest to that if that is what "experience" is. Obama was a state senator before becoming a US senator, what was Hilly? She claims she has foreign policy experience, from what time period? Billy's terms? If that is the case, then was she really calling the shots and not Bill? Hmmm, makes you wonder where she got her bloody experience from doesn't it?

I am not a fan of Obama, but quite frankly, I am sick and tired of Hilly spouting off about her "experience" - where is it? when was it? what was it in? Learning how to ignore one's spouse's considerable infidelities? Well, perhaps that was it...and in that case, she has TREMENDOUS experience!!

Posted by: seekwzdm | March 3, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

@simsink: "Isn't it something that Sen. Obama's supporters have to work so hard to support their candidate to the point of making stuff up in an attempt to demonize her"

Again: As opposed to the sterling behavior of Hillary's supporters? Or more the the point, of Hillary herself?

Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

So, Barack HUSSEIN Obama did not run advertising in Georgia knowing that some of that broadcasting spills over into Florida?

H1000:

Her husband, William JEFFERSON Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone more vile than Hillary Clinton? Is there anything more unpleasant than the knitting-needle-in-the-ear tone of the dried out hags who worship her?

Posted by: H1000 | March 3, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@simsink: "Isn't it something that the only way Obama supporers can support their candidate is by disparaging the other Democrat?"

And this differs from Hillary's supporters how? More importantly, this differs from Hillary herself how?

Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It's really pathetic the way Ms. Clinton's supporters have to keep coming back to Michigan and Florida -- the only states in which Obama (following the rules) did not run. Is that really the best you can do?

Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Someone should tell Hillary Clinton to stop destroying the Democratic party. If there was any substance in her campaign, she would not have been the first candidate to broadcast negative ads. Hillary Can't even run a proper campaign, let alone a nation. All we will get from a Clinton Administration are more miserable failures.

Hillary Clinton has shown zero leadership with her vote for the Iraq war. She did not have a backbone to stand up for a wrong war because she thought voting for the war will be good for her career. What a self-serving and opportunistic queen she must think she is!

If Hillary Clinton is coronated the Queen by corrupt party insiders, her crown will be soaked in the blood of the 3,000+ Americans and the 200,000+ Iraqi's who have died because she did not have the courage to stand up for what is right.

Thankfully we have another candidate who stood up for what he believes in.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | March 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

AJ20770:

I already predicted that Hillary DIANE Clinton will win in Ohio tomorrow ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

a_bigone:

That did not happen "[e]arlier today" FYI. Also, what does (former) Sen. Lott have to do with this thread, about Clinton or Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

THIS JUST IN...In Ohio, Clinton Full of Fight.

Is this meant to be some kind of JOKE? This is one 'fight' I cannot wait to see tomorrow night. She couldn't fight her way out of a hot, wet paper bag! WHERE IS MY POPCORN!

Posted by: AJ20770 | March 3, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Why or why must we continue to fight about what will happen. Obama will win...HRC supporters will WHINE and the democrats will take the White House in November from Great Great Great....Great Grampa Mccain...just a thought :)

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it something that Sen. Obama's supporters have to work so hard to support their candidate to the point of making stuff up in an attempt to demonize her. If you want to be for him, then be for him. I just find it very telling that in order to justify your choice you have to disparage the other.

And Dan Balz (clearly a misnomer), where was this column when she was started this fight.

Posted by: simsink | March 3, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Neighbours, this election is very simple:
Do we choose old, rusty, obscure, unimaginative and currupt political past...?
or we embrace a new generation of politicians with talent, and new sense of direction?
Let's not look at the future through the rearview mirror!

All these accusations and or point fingering are suggesting desperation. Desperation about loosing positions of influence. Desperation to preserve old paradigms that have taken us to the situation that we are today. We cannot resolve problems of the past with the same mind set that has created the problem in the first place.

Let's empower a new generation to guide us into a better tomorrow.
Let's not choose the smae drivers of the bus that took us to the hospital.

Posted by: PCM011 | March 3, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton claims "35 years of experience" which is the entire length of time since her graduation from law School in 1973. But what kind of experience? Only during the past 7 years since her election to the US Senate in November 2000 in her adopted state of New York has Hillary Clinton in her own right actually been an elected official accountable to voters rather than the spouse of an elected official.
Barack Obama's experience has been different. In 1993 he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served 8 years prior to his election to the US Senate in November 2004. With his combined service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator Barack Obama has been an elected official accountable to voters for the past 11 years.
Previous presidential candidates have also been charged with not having enough experience. Senator John Kennedy during the 1960 Democratic primary elections was told he was too inexperienced to be president by such notable members of the "old guard" at the time as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy was told to wait his turn! But, of course JFK became the Democratic nominee for president in 1960 and went on to defeat Richard Nixon in the general election despite Nixon's protest that "Kennedy is too inexperienced to be President." It wasn't true then about John F. Kennedy and it isn't true now about Barack Obama.
Abraham Lincoln was not an old hand in Washington prior to his being elected America's 16th President in 1860. Abe Lincoln had previously served 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature from 1834-1842 during which time he taught himself law and was admitted to the bar. In 1847 he was elected to US House of Representatives serving a single term from 1847-1849 before returning to private law practice in Illinois. On October 16, 1854 a 45 year old Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech against Slavery in Peoria, Illinois and in 1858 was elected to the US Senate, just 2 years before being elected President of the United States. Not much prior "Washington Experience" for "Honest Abe" but he sure made a great American President.
Could it be that the amount of one's prior "Washington Experience" is far less important to being a great president than is having sound judgment, courage, and strong character? Barack Obama had the good judgment to be against the U.S. initiating war in Iraq and had the courage to forcefully say so October 2, 2002, while later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted in favor of President Bush's request for funds authorizing the beginning of the Iraq war.
Senator Barack Obama has served in Washington long enough to understand that changes are needed and unlike his opponent he has already made a significant change. By refusing to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees Barack Obama is proving that one can become elected President of the United States without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington. Barack Obama raises the money necessary for his campaign directly from the people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.

Posted by: bobwestafer | March 3, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary doesn't win both Texas and Ohio by wide margins, she cannot catch up in the delegate count and should step aside. That's what a normal candidate would do for the sake of Democratic unity. However, the Clintons care more about themselves than the party. She will stay in the race as long as possible, sabotaging Obama's chances of winning in 2008, thus leaving the door open for her to run again in 2012.

Posted by: kmcnyasha | March 3, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Earlier today, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), announced that he would resign from the Senate by the end of the year. Lott, a former college cheerleader at Ole' Miss, claims that he would like to leave on a "positive note", " after winning re-election last year to a leadership post and fostering legislation for rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. However, one can't help but wonder if there is some other reason behind the abrupt decision.

Later on Monday, a Washington D.C. blog, Big Head DC, made the claim that Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt had uncovered a connection between Lott and an openly gay male escort by the name of Benjamin Nicholas.

Nicholas so far hasn't admitted to sleeping with Lott, but he hasn't exactly denied it either. "Here's my public comment, on-the-record: Sen. Lott and I have no current affiliation with one another. I'm sure he would appreciate no further scrutiny," said Nicholas.

If Nicholas' name sounds familiar, there's good reason. He previously spoke out against Ted Haggard's boy toy, Mike Jones, for airing the preacher's dirty laundry and "breaking" an unwritten escort code of silence and betraying his client's right to privacy.

Considering his feelings on the Haggard situation, it makes sense that he would not publicly admit or reveal any information. It is also very curious that Big Head DC mentioned that Hustler was working on this story, especially considering that Larry Flynt promised us a new GOP gay sex scandal coming soon.

At this point it is all pure speculation, and if Hustler is in fact about to reveal Lott and some gay romps with a male escort, well we're sure to find out soon enough. But consider this: who, after spending millions of dollars seeking re-election, leaves in the middle of their term for any reason other than a scandal, health condition, or personal situation?

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Digi:

I don't worry. "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?"

Matthew 6:25-27

P.S. to all -- how soon before Hillary Diane Clinton brings up Obama's connection to The Weather Underground terrorist organization?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton is a realist who understands her current plight; she has little margin for error."

Correction : Clintons never err. They are so utterly 100% perfect with a margin of about 100% that anything goes anytime.

Posted by: ratl | March 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "(2) Your calculations forget Florida and Michigan. Florida is heavily Clinton territory and Michigan is at best likely to favor her. There will be some resolution to the Florida/Michigan mess, and you can bet it won't be leaving those states out."

Let's don't forget. They can't count Michigan as it stands because Hillary was the only one left on the ballot as she didn't withdraw her name as they all agree to do. Then she was almost defeated by "un-committed"

Those are some mighty big if's you have there. Don't hold your breath.


Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 04:04 PM

==============================

Can you please explain how getting 55% of the vote (when uncommitted got 40%) is almost losing? (Also, do you not admit that Obama's people were encouraging everyone to vote "Uncommitted" against Hillary?) Do you believe Hillary's 50% of the vote in Florida (compared to Obama's 33%) is also "almost losing"?

Posted by: JSnapper | March 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Geez! After reading all these posts I think I'll change my mind and vote for McCaine!

Posted by: kparc | March 3, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Only God knows "for sure" that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a devout Christian ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 12:41 PM

And only GOD should be worrying about that!
Haven't seen ONE Christian comment since begining to read this blog....

Posted by: Digi | March 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse


please don't entitle this story "clinton full of fight", please call it for what it is...

CLINTON IS FULL OF SLEAZE.

obama vowed to not do negative campaigning.. and he has kept his word. clinton, the cackling hen however.. is looking more and more like george bush every day...

i don't any more bushs in washington..

and i certainly don't want bill and hillary.

IT'S TIME FOR A ~REAL~ CHANGE.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | March 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

it's time for Hillary and Bill to just go away. her latest ads remind me of the macarthy hearings sound bite: "have you no sense of decency sir? at long last, have you no sense of decency?"

yep, that about sums about the uber-narcissitic clintons.

Posted by: wilk33 | March 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it something that the only way Obama supporers can support their candidate is by disparaging the other Democrat? If you want to be for him, be for him, but if you have to work this hard to demonize Sen Clinton to feel good about supporting Sen Obama then something is wrong.

And Dan Balz (clearly a misnomer, where was this article when she was fighting from the beginning?

Posted by: simsink | March 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

As my young daughter says about Hillary: "Stick a fork in her, she's toast." Cracks me up every time. Kids really do say the darnedest things. Hillary is done. Obama has too much momentum and should beat her handily on Tuesday. I am looking forward to watching the results tomorrow night. Obama '08!!

Posted by: ex-Navy | March 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "One has misrepresented his views on trade and even called Canadian government officials to say "he didn't really mean it"

That was even denied by the Canadian official and widely publicized. Read up. And Obama has spelled out his platform in every way. Read up. Why are you putting out this stuff?? Clinton will have to run her presidency from jail if she is elected. Read up on the coming trial about the Clintons.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "(2) Your calculations forget Florida and Michigan. Florida is heavily Clinton territory and Michigan is at best likely to favor her. There will be some resolution to the Florida/Michigan mess, and you can bet it won't be leaving those states out."

Let's don't forget. They can't count Michigan as it stands because Hillary was the only one left on the ballot as she didn't withdraw her name as they all agree to do. Then she was almost defeated by "un-committed"

Those are some mighty big if's you have there. Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

John,

OK, let's compare management styles.

One candidate has told us what she is going to do, how, when, where, why

the other has talked about "change" but left it undefined as to how, who, what,w here, and when

One candidate has run on a record of foreign and domestic policy

The other has run primarily on a speech given without in depth knowlege of what was going on, a lucky gut-feeling at a peac rally when he was a state senator

One candidate has run a race-baiting campaign and he should own up ot it:
h
the new republic is a left wing journal
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083
additionally he has been mysogynistic, calling her emotional and whining.

One has misrepresented his views on trade and even called Canadian government officials to say "he didn't really mean it"

He has misrepresented himself on everything

That is how he ran his campaign, that is how he will be as president- do you really want your 2 year senator?

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 3, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

All those "Clinton can't win" posters ignore three facts:

(1) If Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and yes, Florida and Michigan along with a majority of the remaining states, Clinton will have every right to say she should win.

(2) Your calculations forget Florida and Michigan. Florida is heavily Clinton territory and Michigan is at best likely to favor her. There will be some resolution to the Florida/Michigan mess, and you can bet it won't be leaving those states out.

(3) Obama can't reach the number he needs without superdelegates either. If Clinton wins from here on out and Obama's bubble is burst, you can bet the superdelegates will be streaming back to Clinton.

Is this all likely? Certainly not. Is it possible? Certainly so. And certainly more likely than it was on Friday.

Posted by: JSnapper | March 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "All of Senator Clinton's bluster and stagecraft is merely to soothe her supporters-
Seventy-two hours from now she'll concede and support Senator Obama."

I hope that you are right. But, after seeing her in action, I think she will go on till the bitter end, suing, crying, threatening, begging, till she convinces the super delegates that she is the "annointed one". She will tear her party apart for years to come. The Republicans will win and you can say "thanks Hillary".
I hope that I am wrong.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

i love the rhetoric, Hillary may win by a slim margin in a state that the clinton's have been campaigning in for over 10 years - that show real appeal and organization - she has turned into her real self petty and pathetic, scratching and clawing in the boxing ring because she does not have the skills or ability to punch and slide

Posted by: fixbone | March 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary had many 3AM crisis/phone ringing off the hook. She been there and done that with Bill Clinton calling with every excuse in the book about why he won't be home early and/or working late explaining to an intern how government and political power really works in Washington..... The Clintons so disgraced this country. I hope Texas will be their last stand. Ken

Posted by: kenwooden | March 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

from Salon a piece of a much longer article but worth paying attention to:

"I was just in Doha, Qatar, for the Brookings Institution's annual U.S.- Islamic World Forum, and one of the moderators asked the non-Americans in the audience, 'If you could vote for one of the U.S. presidential candidates, who would you vote for?'" says Keith Reinhard. "The number of hands that shot up for Barack Obama far outnumbered those for anyone else. So in that part of the world, at least, there's no question at all." And in other parts of the world as well. "In Germany, they're fascinated with him, they call him 'Der schwarze Kennedy,' the 'black Kennedy,'" says Dick Martin. "They feel he has the same aura about him." In fact, just a few weeks ago, Germany's leading newsmagazine Der Spiegel ran a cover feature on Obama, illustrated by a paired set of images -- Barack on the left, JFK on the right -- and asking whether America will "finally have the chance to be loved again." The issue's cover line raised the stakes to a new level: It read, simply, "The Messiah Factor."

That's because, in Europe, and in Asia, Latin America and Africa as well, the perception is that an Obama presidency represents the potential for catharsis after nearly a decade of frustration with the U.S. "Our brand has been hammered recently, but beneath the anger, there's this underlying hope among people around the world that we can do better," says Patricia Martin. "And we can. We reinvent ourselves. It's what we're known for: We've had more comebacks than Frank Sinatra. I think that's why you have people in every country eating up every little turn in this election's story. This election, the whole world is watching."

Posted by: sheridan1 | March 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

now let's examine some of the selling points of the


repulsive scammers

"The Clintons," are to blame for everything that they are getting no profit from

but the Repulsive Scammers are profitting handsomely from...


the invasion of IRAQ and current occupation


is paying the Clintons "how much,"


the NAFTA, crafted during Reagains time pushed through George H.W. Bushes efforts and finally signed during the Clinton Administration...


the Bush Family has relations with Central, South America y Mehico for various reasons...


most of the OIL and DRUG RELATED,


and they are profitting handsomely from NAFTA.


so little peanuts listen closely,

what does a theif do? think in terms of your little sister or brother who just stole and ate all of the cookies,


they blame it on another sibling...

who profits from these things that the repulsive scammers are screaming about ????


they do. tax breaks and incentives to outsource manufacturing...


whose watch is it occuring on ???

who is encouraging it ?

.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

And after the smoke clears from the Primaries battling...

LOOK! Out there! On the Horizon.

Is it a Bird? A Plane?

Noooooo!

It's Super Nader! :-)

The REAL Democrat! The one all the true "Old School" Democrats should Flock to!

Hallelujah, and PTL! St. Ralph has Returned! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Fox News and MSNBC already decided the outcomes of the race last month. Who cares about the primary. Vote for the guy they say is going to win or your stupid.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

All of Senator Clinton's bluster and stagecraft is merely to soothe her supporters-
Seventy-two hours from now she'll concede and support Senator Obama.

Posted by: kase | March 3, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

let's be honest here.


Obama is using the repulsive scammer drum beat


as his own.

"The Clintons,"

the only Democrats to defeat the Repulsives SCAMMERS on their home turf


in the last 60 years


Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Those who find the Semitic origin name "Hussein" somehow un-Judaeo-Christian should forthwith drop names like David ("Daoud")and consider Latin Americans with names like "Hosein" nothing more than Muslims hiding under the appearances of Catholicism, and consequently threats to true Americans to be barred at the border.

Of all the stupidity, ignorance, prejudice and petty malice!

Posted by: william_beetstra | March 3, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Hi Folks,

Lets keep it really simple and factual:

Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq war, for a preemptive invasion, and as a consequence for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and about 4000 Americans. She did not even bother to read the National Intelligence estimate before casting her vote.

Now an opinion:

I believe that Senator Clinton voted this way because she and her advisers thought she had to in order to preserve her presidential aspirations.

Senator Clinton's vote on Iraq disqualifies her. If you cannot see that you are not focussed on what is truly important.

Posted by: fred_h_harder | March 3, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"I want Universal Health Care as you propose, not Obama Health Care which would still leave my 26 year old son unable to get insurance."

He would get it all right. Nothing is free. She would garnish his wages according to her statements:

Sunday, February 3, 2008 12:00 PM


WASHINGTON -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary a realist?

I don't equate reality with a lack of ethical behaviour..it might be the norm during Bush.

In that light, Hillary Clinton should be called a, "normalist."

Posted by: hrayovac | March 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton needs to receive what she richly deserves ahd has earned in full; and these things are the straight jacket now, and the short while in prison on the death row in the nearest future.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh, one more thing. They say the true character of a person emerges under difficult circumstances. Using this logic, I must say I have been rather disappointed with the way Hillary Clinton has emerged during this undboubtedely very stressful time for her. Her remarks on the 60 Minutes on the connection between Obama and Muslim were very much a shot in her own foot. No matter how desperate she may have felt to win the primaries tomorrow, she should have resisted the temptation to stir up the popular fear of Muslims against her opponent. It really revealed the deepest flaw in her character to any thoughtful observer.

Posted by: thisworld | March 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! Loved you on SNL. Thanks for showing Obama for what he is -- an empty shell with no positions. I want Universal Health Care as you propose, not Obama Health Care which would still leave my 26 year old son unable to get insurance.

Posted by: bghgh | March 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

DON't FORGET THIS, you don't want to trust the outgoing LOSERS....because they're burying landmines in your administration kids...

.

THE REPULSIVE SCAMMERS HOPE YOU FORGET THE LAST 8 YEARS AS THE DEMOCRATS DID IN 1992....


DON'T !!!!


As Bill Clinton was about to take office, there were other lingering questions about secret Republican dealings with Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the 1980s. The CIA allegedly had assisted in arranging third-country supplies of sophisticated armaments to Saddam Hussein in his border war with Iran.

President Bush had angrily denounced such charges after they were raised following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But a number of witnesses were alleging that the CIA had helped arrange the supplies, including cluster bombs to Iraq through Chile.

In 1992-93, the Democrats were in a strong position to get to the bottom of all these historic questions that had so entangled U.S. foreign policy in the 1980s. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the White House. Walsh was furious with Bush's Iran-contra pardons and was considering impaneling a new grand jury to force Bush's testimony. [See Walsh's book, Firewall, for more details.]

Getting answers to these questions also made policy sense, if for no other reason than it was important for the new administration to know where diplomatic mine fields might be hidden in this delicate geopolitical landscape.

Shutting Down

But the Democrats -- led by then-House Speaker Tom Foley and Rep. Lee Hamilton -- chose a very different course. Apparently believing that battling for answers would distract from the domestic policy agenda, such as passage of a universal health care plan, the Democrats chose to shut down all the investigations.

In December 1992, Foley signaled Bush that he would have no problem with the Iran-contra pardons. After the pardons were issued, a few Democrats groused but no hearings were held and no formal explanation was demanded, even though this may have been the first time a president had used his pardon powers to protect himself from possible incrimination.

After the Inauguration, the Clinton administration offered no help to Walsh in arranging declassification of documents that would have aided his investigation. When Bush refused to submit to an interview with Walsh's prosecutors, the Democrats made not a peep about this final move to obstruct the Iran-contra investigation.

Faced with a lack of political support, Walsh decided not to call Bush before a grand jury and shut down his office.

On the 1980 Iran issue, a congressional task force chose to obscure or cover up the new evidence of Republican guilt. Bani-Sadr's letter was misrepresented in the task force's report as mere speculation. Bani-Sadr's detailed account of the interplay inside the Iranian government was simply ignored.

Only those who bothered to dig through the task force report's appendix could find out what the Iranian president had actually said.


Not a single story about Bani-Sadr's letter appeared in major newspapers.

In an odd twist, the task force accepted the testimony about deMarenches's account of Republicans meeting Iranians in Paris as "credible," but then incongruously dismissed it as irrelevant, since it conflicted with Republican denials.

The extraordinary Russian report describing what Soviet intelligence files had shown about the Republican-Iran initiative was simply hidden. There was no serious follow-up with the Russians to determine how solid their intelligence was and how they had obtained the information.

SEARCH ON Russians, October Surprise, Cater, Paris, Robert M. Gates, George H.W. Bush


get to know a little history.


.
...
.


first things first: shut down halliburton, bechtel, kbr, blackwater, dyncorp's involvement in IRAQ...


conscript the contractors and make them work for GSA at GS scale wages,


as a first step, seperate the thieves from the money....simple eh?

.


it's a national security issue. we don't get what we pay for. and I don't remember paying to have IRAQ's infrastructure destroyed so the citizenry couldn't protest the oil theft do you?...


take a bite out of crime, elect someone who's been there before,


and been on the receiving end of this level of dishonesty, and held their own...

.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Even if Obama now indeed does actually have "policies" I can't get beyond the asinine and insipid slogans his campaign has been throwing around such as "Yes we can!" and "holes in our soles" as well as the teenagers he has following him who blindly chant this drivel like they are at a rock-concert. The higher ups in the Dem Party, being true politicians, are starting to follow the throng. Let's see how long it all lasts.

Posted by: pgr88 | March 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 01:45 PM

Uh..didn't HRC agree that FLorida and Michigan delegates would not be seated at the convention?

Can she really try to change that now that she is desperate without looking...criminal?

Posted by: sheridan1 | March 3, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that she failed at getting universal health coverage as first lady; failed at opposing the invasion of iraq; and failed at opposing NAFTA. She has passed two insignificant bills in eight years as senator (renaming a building or a park or something insignificant).
She's had the chance to prove herself. She's failed and underperformed. Not presidential material.

GO AWAY HILLARY

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

Personally, I LIKE the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein. It's a marvelous change from the usual Judeo-Christian thing, and that can only be good.

www.robertingersoll.com

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

Has it not occurred to you folks that the Obama's biggest attraction for many people is that he represents at least the hope for something other than the normal DC incompetence? He may be "not ready for prime time", but at least he's different. We haven't had a president able to think for himself since Harry Truman.

Folks want to complain and lament about the lack of participation in the political process. Now we have somebody who is bringing excitement and people to the process. He is drawing people who have never voted, who don't believe they make any difference, who are disillusioned with the process, and he is making them feel that there is hope for themselves and their country. So now folks are upset that these people being drawn into the process don't agree with the status quo?? That's the whole point!! They're making their own decisions, thinking for themselves. Let's face it, the folks we've been sending to DC the last 40 years haven't been real successful in helping the country.

I hated it that FatTed endorsed him. I was concerned that having a murderer come out and support him would work against him, due to the anti-Kennedy feelings that still prevail in America.

Then he hooked up with Oprah??? I thought that would backfire on him, for sure. What does she know about politics? He seems to have survived that, also.

We've discussed how the "younger generation" has divorced themselves from politics in America. Here is a guy who is pulling them back into it. Isn't that what this country needs? Somebody/something had to ignite the younger people and get them interested in the process. That's a GOOD thing. Our country has been going to the dogs, partly due to the apathy of the American people.

Bottom line is, Obama may not have the "experience" of "Billary". Uh...just why is that a BAD thing?

Posted by: whatacodoug | March 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton full of fight, now that's news!

Poor Mrs. Clinton, how could she have underestimated Mr. Obama and his threat to her nomination? Actually, its quite easy to understand if you believe the mantra of the democratic party.

You see, America is the land of racism. In the minds of Dems, whites in America personify racism. After reciting this mantra for these many long years, is it any wonder that the Clintons and their advisors never really understood the threat from a man who is at least partly black?

Posted by: magellan1 | March 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

looks like there's alotofrepulsivescammers here today


telling the democrats how to think.


so thattherepulsive retain their welfareforthe CORPORATOCRACY


.yah think.


Hillary RodTHEM CLINTON


is of course the tool of choice for clearing what ails AMERICA's backside


.sometimes you have to take a little tea to remove the parasites...from the food tract.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Here is an excellent story by a reporter who covered Obama while he was in Chicago and knows him better than any other reporter.

A more realistic picture of Obama that showed his ambitions for higher office, the lengths he went to achieve them, and how he did not hesitate to walk over people to accomplish his ends. Not quite the picture of Hope and Unity and Change that you expected to see from this candidate. He has warts and some of them ain't pretty.

Must reading for all Obama supporters to find out more about your candidate. It will be interesting to see how they explain and rationalize away some of the points made by the reporter, Todd Spivak.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

Barack Obama and Me
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
By Todd Spivak
Published: February 28, 2008, Houston Press

Posted by: David2007 | March 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "OMG, if I hear another person tout that Mr. Clinton was responsible for the economic success during his tenure, I'll vomit. It was technology that was responsible for our boon in the early nineties not Bill, and technology that was responsible for the economic hardship that followed in 1999, not Bush."

Also, remember that congress became overwhelming Republican in the elections shortly after Clinton went into office and were still there when he left office. The president leads, congress makes the laws. Clinton had nothing to do with the "economic success". Pure luck of the draw, which is catching up with them.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"Ready from day one" but "just getting warmed up."

"Full of fight.

Or "full of s#$t?"

Posted by: mnjam | March 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Another "teary-eyed moment"?

Maybe she suffers from allergies. She's allergic to the voters and to the statements she makes to them.

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

In addition, Clintons' advisers help set us these rules in Texas and now she is threatening to sue her own party in Texas because of the very rules which they set up. This lady is viscious and a danger to the USA. The Texas Democratic party sent the Clinton campaign a letter after receiving one which they consider to be the threat of a lawsuit:

The letter also noted that many of Clinton's senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state's caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state's caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

The biggest reason why Obama has been turning out voters in big numbers is because of this: What has been happening in this nomination contest is something new and it energized people with hope. Hope, which Hillary has been trying to trash on so many occassions, is more often than not, the only thing that sustains many millions of people in the US, and so many more in the world. There are billions of people in the world watching to see whether America has come of age, and can finally produce a colored president. This will be an undisputable hallmark of civilisation and true enlightened democracy. We never thought it was going to be easy. But I believed that America could do it. And I have been hoping that it can finally transcend this all poisoning racial ceiling. After all, this is a nation which went to war against one another over blacks. That alone gave me faith in its inherent courage which I hoped would show when the crunch time came. Now, I am not so sure however, with the 4th of March loomsing so close. Can America do it or will it fall back into its familiar position again by still voting for 'one of us'?

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

Ms Clinton's supporters are focusing only on the extremely negative, fringe comments here. They are not responding to the serious arguments, such as:

1) Her claims of experience are grossly inflated

2) The quality of her judgment is open to question

3) Her campaign thus far does not give great confidence in her managerial skills

4) Justly or unjustly, she alienates a large number of voters, even in the Democratic primary
Her supporters elide over this issues by means of the constant repetition of catch phrases like "experience" and "empty suit." Those are not arguments.

How exactly is she being "victimized" any more than a bi-racial candidate with the middle name Hussein? I am seeing quite insulting posts directed his way here as well.

Mr. Obama does not chose to make his treatment by others, or any perceived or real historical grievances, a center point of his campaign, however. I think this is one thing that voters find immensely appealing about him, especially in comparison to Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

OMG, if I hear another person tout that Mr. Clinton was responsible for the economic success during his tenure, I'll vomit. It was technology that was responsible for our boon in the early nineties not Bill, and technology that was responsible for the economic hardship that followed in 1999, not Bush.

Posted by: lisagardelle | March 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"and PPP shows her with a solid lead in Texas - Hillary's got the momentum heading into tomorrow's primaries!

Go Hillary!!

Oh, good grief, Hillary is behind in polls in Texas by 6 percent. Who the heck is PPP?
Besides polls mean nothing in Texas because of the bizarre election laws set up by the Demos. We have both a vote and then a caucus. The caucus doesn't happen until tomorrow night. She could win the popular vote and still lose the delegates in Texas. You will have to wait till late tomorrow night or early Wednesday to know.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I admire Hillary. But she is running one of the most ridiculous campaigns in history.

Why give speeches denouncing speeches? It is absurd. If speech making is stupid or worthless, then shut up and stop giving speeches.

Why is eloquence a mark of stupidity or ineffectiveness? Why is a lack of eloquence a sign of superior intelligence or leadership ability? It is preposterous.

She has lost all credibility with these "arguments."

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

Mr. Balz, you're absolutely correct here. Hillary is the FIGHTER. Her combative ways will sew the destruction of the Democratic Party by refusing to embrace the grass roots and progressives in the party, preferring to pander to the well-heeled and most powerful.

Hillary is the UNITER. She will unite a despirited Republican Party and thereby make a collection of losers (McCain is Bush '43 re-packaged) into a very clse Presidential election by offering hereself as red meat to a group of voters who will forget their troubles when the Clinton name emerges. But more troubling fro Sen. Clinton will be all the local House (Congressional) races dashed down the political toilet because progressive candidates will have to deal with Repug's coming out and voting just like they did when Karl Rove waved gay marriage issue and "patriotism" issues in 2002 and 2004.

Lastly, Balz, you paint this as the last quarter in the race between these two campaigns. Clinton's campaign has set the expectations of Obama must take all four states (Ohio, Texas, Vermont, & Rhode Island) to be a "victory". Balderdash! Suppose the votes are split pretty even in Texas and Ohio; Vermont goes to Barack (check the money trail there), and Hillary gets a bit more of Rhode Island? It is not over and the delegate count is problematic for both.

This gets very messy. Progressive voters are fed up with the "old" Democratic Party refusing to stand up and be counted when things mattered most. These elected Democrats - the "Centrist" folks of the Clinton era who pander to the likes of the Joe Lieberman's in the world - have stopped representing our needs. To all of those older white women in Ohio and the Hispanics in Texas... do you really think HRC gives a rat's butt about your needs? We've seen the results of the Clinton style of governance - and I voted for Wiliam Jefferson Clinton twice - and their time and style is no longer operative.

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

ascordo3:
Well put. And you are right, it swings both ways. I'm a middle aged middle income midwest male democrat who can barely count the number of times i've heard similar voters (long-time democrats) stating that they would vote Mr. McCain over Mrs. Clinton. She is such a divisive character (look at the out-of-control anger in the posts above) and that character will carry over to her presidency.

This country has done enough fighting. Let's start thinking again. And with that I pour a little of my Budweiser out onto the road for William F. Buckley, Jr. I grew up with him as the quintessential republican, now we have Rush, Sean, George and Karl. Yikes.

Posted by: lsoiseth | March 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that someone who wants to be president of the U.S. has "zig-zagged" the public all over the place. From her disoriented campaign to her disoriented speeches... I hope the Democratic party can end this theatre of the absurb quickly. How much can the American people take with her shifting views, as Sen. Obama has plainly pointed this out. He is the one running a brilliant campaign, looking stately and talking of substance not immersing himself with her pettiness at any given moment.

Hang it up Hilary. We are moving forward, not backward.

Posted by: hblackshire | March 3, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

The general election will BE a fight and no one knows if Obama's red hot popularity can hold up once the real attack dogs are unleashed. I wish there was more time for him to be vetted. My biggest fear is not that Obama is a rock star but that we'll find out too late he's really more like a pop star with a meteoric rise and equally rapid fall.

Posted by: susan | March 3, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Easy to see the Obama slime machine is out in full force on every internet message board this evening.
Must be desperation: latest polls from Survey USA and Public Policy Polling show Clinton with a widening lead in Ohio, and PPP shows her with a solid lead in Texas - Hillary's got the momentum heading into tomorrow's primaries!

Go Hillary!!

Posted by: ichief | March 3, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Who do you predict will win the Texas Democratic Presidential Primary?"

Obama, and because of the bizarre election laws in the Democratic party in Texas. We have both a vote and then a caucus if you voted. You can cross over and vote Democratic in the primary and then vote for a Republican in the general election. Many Republicans are doing this because they know Hillary and the Clintons all too well. Also the delegates are not set up according to popular vote. Hillary could win the popular vote and easily lose the delegates. This is not so in the Republican laws. The demos set up these laws and back them.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama will be as effective a president as Deval Patrick is as a governor in Massachusetts. If Obama wins, I hope that he takes Patrick away from us ASAP! Deval Patrick is a dud of a state governor. Who cares if they give good speech? Would MLK have made a good president? No he would not have imo. But he was a very good man and an inspirational leader for the people.

I also feel very uncomfortable that Obama is pulling in so many donations and basically buying the election. He also has a great grassroots network, but that isn't what should decide the election. It should be about the candidates themselves, and not the money and campaign mechanisms behind them.

Posted by: martine | March 3, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

rmyurick,

Hillary has lost 11 in a row! Don't give me this gargage about FLA and MI. You know that if given an opportunity to acutally "compete" in those two states that Obama would have at least split the delegates. If you disagree with that statement then you are being disengenous.

Look, it's about winning. Hillary has given 11 different excuses. It's depressing to watch.

If Obama loses big in Ohio and Texas then I think he has real problems. But he needs to lose by as much as he has won thelast 11 primaries/caucuses. If he keeps it close, and picks up a win in Texas, then it's over for Hillary.

Even Romney knew when to quit. And he did it for his party. Let's see what Hillary does.

Posted by: burgundee | March 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

OK, After reading the article and then reading the comments, I have to admit (as a Republican) that it's been fun watching the democrats rip each other.

OK, so here's the thing. My wife and I are Republicans, and yet she wears an Obama pin and I openly support him against Hilary for a number of reasons.

1. For the past 20 years this country of about 300 million people has been ruled by 2 families. If Clinton gets the nomination and wins, then we go on to 24 years of two families, possibly 28. What the heck, lets just make her queen Hillary, and pass it on to Chelsea when Hillary's time is done. Or, we could pass it back on to Jeb. Come on people, we can do better than that.

2. Hillary is tied to the past and the destruction of our economy. Oh, it's easy to blame Bush as he's screwed up so many things, but in truth NAFTA and giving China "Most Favored Trade Partner" status (done under Bill), pretty much screwed the average American worker.

3. I am sick and tired of both the extreme left, the extreme right, and not being able to trust anybody. Hillary keeps saying she's a fighter. That she's going to fight to get things done. The problems is that when she fought for universal health care, she fought so hard that she alienated people on both sides of the isle.

This country needs a unifier, someone we can trust. Someone that, while we may not agree with them on everything, can find a middle ground. Hillary is not that person.

4. Hillary is to polarizing to win the Presidential race. I can't stand her. I will never cross party lines to vote for her, and I know many Republicans like myself that feel the same way. Yet start talking about Obama, and I will vote for him in the fall (even though I don't agree with him on everything), and many of those republicans I mentioned . . you know those republicans looking for somebody other than a Clinton that was opposed to the war that they could vote for . . . will end up crossing party lines and voting for Obama.


And don't doubt that McCain doesn't have the potential support of moderate democrats. Those that are tired of partisanship.

One last word . . given the state of everything right now, if I have to choose between Hope, and Experience (aka More of the Same) . . I want HOPE.

Posted by: ascordo3 | March 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

No Third Term For Bill OR Bush! Vote Obama!!

Posted by: nads1 | March 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The article states:

"Clinton is a realist who understands her current plight. She has little margin for error on Tuesday and is now fighting for survival."

RESPONSE: If Hillary is NOT completely obliterated tomorrow--Good for the Republicans!!

Posted by: JaxMax | March 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Voters of the Great State of Ohio:
Here is your chance, to teach Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton, a lesson, for signing on to NAFTA, without adequate safeguard to protect the thousands of jobs that have moved from Ohio companies, to China, Mexico and India. Thousands of people in Ohio are now unemployed and unable to provide for their families basic needs. It is all as a result of the dubious trade agreement that Hillary Clinton and her husband signed into law, as NAFTA. Hillary Clinton thinks people in Ohio must not be smart enough to understand that, she and her husband, lobbied hard to enact NAFTA. She now comes back to ask for your votes so that she and Bill Clinton could come back to the White House and enact another NAFTA that could take away the few remaining jobs in Ohio. Are you going to let this happen?

By her utterances, in desperation, it is obvious that there is NOTHING, Hillary Clinton would not do, to be the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States, except, perhaps, pimp out her daughter (although, I would not put this option beyond her). Her desperation to win Texas and Ohio Primary/Caucus should worry voters in these and other forthcoming primaries and caucuses. When a candidate is as desperate for office as Hillary Clinton is, there is nothing they would not do, to gain a political upper hand. Look at what Hillary Clinton did to Hispanics, after that ethnic group overwhelmingly voted for her in California and Nevada. Hillary sidelined the most prominent hispanic on her campaign -Ms. Solis, and replaced her with Maggie Williams.

Again, I warn voters in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and other forthcoming state primaries and caucuses: Hillary Clinton is a very divisive figure, like her husband, she is a congenital liar, and absolutely lacks the honesty and the skills to unite our country, at this very critical time in our history, when we are so divided and polarized as a nation. Furthermore, by voting for and nominating Hillary Clinton, her convicted perjurer husband, Bill Clinton, who has sexually abused and assaulted several women before, may get another opportunity to come back to the White House to sexually abuse other young women. You all remember how Bill Clinton sexually assaulted Paula Jones, and a young woman, Monica Lewinsky, who was working as an intern in the White House. Bill Clinton's female victims could have been your daughter, sister, niece, wife, or mother.

My fellow Americans: we have had enough of the Clintons' drama -the scandals and divisive politics they bring. Let us not bring them back.

We are almost there: without a win for Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas, she is almost finished. We do not need a divisive person, who lacks integrity, and cannot unite our country, like Hillary Clinton. She condoned the sexual assault and abuse of other women, by her husband, by waging a campaign of misinformation and disinformation to belittle, dehumanize and revictimize those women, who were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton. That is the type of dubious campaign of misinformation and disinformation she is spreading all over Texas, Ohio and Vermont, against Sen. Obama. Hillary and Bill Clinton would do anything, I MEAN, ANYTHING, to eliminate all their opponents. Hillary is trying to do that to Sen. Obama. As Americans, the people of Ohio like and are for winning fair and square. As you may have noticed by now, Hillary Clinton is not playing fair. Do not vote for her, and if you do, and God forbids, she becomes the nominee and the next President, Ohio and Texas should take blame for the troubles and divisiveness that Hillary and Bill Clinton would sure cause the American people. PLEASE DO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN, AND DO NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH THE DRAMA OF THESE TWO MOST DISHONORABLE PEOPLE, EVER TO OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE.

Ignatius Anyanwu

Posted by: ICA2101 | March 3, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

To jmcauli1:

I think you proved my point with out trying. She didn't go to work with him everyday. I dont see Laura Bush everywhere I see George. I do know a good bit about retail thanks to my Dad, but I am smart enough to know not to claim what he knows, as my knowledge. Its not the highlights of the job that make you, its the daily grind, where you earn your merits.

Due to my fathers contacts I would have a better chance of getting in the door. But they wouldn't put me at a VP level or CFO level just because thats where he was. This is how Hillary is projecting her "35 Years". I was on the Hillary band wagon until the Karl Rove tactics came into play in South Carolina. Between the 2000-04 elections, it was those tactics I hoped would not be present in this election. I have been sadly mistaken.

Posted by: kistel | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

So now, Hillary is a fighter. Look at all the changes she's put herself through to connect with voters. Obama has been the same cool, collected, thoughtful candidate throughout.

So what if Hillary "wins" Ohio. She'll have to win by more than 20 percentage points there and in Texas to be able to slow the Obama machine.

I think most folks are tired of fighting and fighters - that's what this administration has given us for the last seven years. Enough FIGHTING.

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama has been running a much classier campaign. From the source of his funding, to his commitment to compete in every state, to his refusal to partake in campaigns of insinuation and innuendo. I would say a clear indication of their likely performance under pressure would be watching Mr. Obama maintain his cool in a debate while Ms Clinton loses hers.

It will be a pity for the Party if Ms Clinton wins only by appealing to wealthy friends for bail-outs, resorting to ad hominem attacks, and seeking at the last minute to change the rules governing delegates -- rules she agreed to when she was far ahead in the polls. It cannot help but cheapen any "success" she she would so achieve.


Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Why is the mainstream media not reporting on the Clintons involvement in a 17 million dollar lawsuit for FRAUD: http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/could_the_paul_v_clinton_fraud_suit_upset_the_clinton_democratic_party/

This is ridiculous! Spread the news since they won't report on it.

Posted by: n.vogue | March 3, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Texas Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Texas Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1793

.


Ohio Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1794

.


Posted by: jeffboste | March 3, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Ooh, ooh, ooh, I hate Clinton and I hope she loses!"

Well, there is that too, and it is said by about half the country. I thought the democrats were trying to unite, not alienate half the country.

Hillary is tearing her party apart and she doesn't care. She "deserves" to be president, so she thinks. Why, I say? And so are more and more thinking democrats.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"There will be plenty of second-guessing why she didn't get it right."

Don't make me laugh. Everybody knows why. Bill would never have won either if he had run against Obama.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 3, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

One simple question to Hillary Clinton !

You have long royal history, you have diplomatic smile, you have Bill, you have Chelsea, you have connections, you have worldwide fame and so on !

Obama is poor. No experience, black, not ready, simple looking and so on !

Then why people like him, so far, more than you ?

Posted by: b_lyric | March 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"Given the Clinton campaign approach to all things, there is little doubt that these phrases have been carefully tested with polling and focus groups and that the words she is using are echoes of what her messagemeisters have concluded Ohioans in particular want to hear..."

This paragraph is a total non-sequitur attack which epitomizes the press bias against Clinton; why not just substitute:

"Ooh, ooh, ooh, I hate Clinton and I hope she loses!"

The meaning would be the same.

Posted by: skreechdog | March 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

George Bernard Shaw wrote this all time great parody, "Man and Superman".

If I were to title a new play today, it would be "Brat and Superbrat" and you can guess about whom it would be...

Posted by: mdsubramonia | March 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Such anger from Obamamites! Your sainted leader would be disgusted with you.

Have you forgotten already? It's time to turn the page, gentle people.

Now, let's all join cyber-hands and sing a verse of Kumbaya, just like you metaphorically do at your Obama rally/therapy sessions.

Now, finally, let's close by repeating verse 3, from chapter 1 in the Book of Barack: Republicans are our friends. Republicans are our friends. Republicans . . . .

Feel better now?

Posted by: barrypeirson | March 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Well, I think the Clintons' record on American foreign wars just show THEY ARE LOSERS. Also, this campaign theme swinging, all the time, everywhere, just shows she got no ideas, or if she got any, they are so dark and destructive she cannot tell. She can fight all that she wants. As always happened with the Clintons in DC, we fought a lot, but we always lost. At least the Bushes won wars, even if they destroyed our country economy to do so.
So, that is why, we, old soldiers, want peace. We want to have our neighbors back, to have peace, to raise our crops, to be happy to be Americans again. And this doesn't come with someone that has the declared hate of 50% of our nation against her. This will come with a message of hope, respect, and unity.
Obama is delivering that, our older brother, the cool guy everybody wants to be friends with. I think papa McCain can delivered that as well, our old pa', ready to take care and protect us Americans on the times of distress.
But is this madmen mafia, that bases their politics on hate and personal attacks ready to do the same? I don't think so. Out with all that Karl Rove supports! Out with the Bushes and Clintons!

Posted by: mp2007 | March 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

So if Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, Oprahma should remove himself? He's only ahead by an estimated 100 delegates out of about 1300. There's still PA and maybe FLA & MI to go!

Posted by: rmyurick | March 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

rmyurick: how does the Rezko matter compare to Ms Clinton's Hsu fiasco? It looks rather trivial in comparison, doesn't it?

Posted by: nodebris | March 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's new ads, featuring her hit single:

"Smells Like Middle Aged Poltician Desperation"

Posted by: Marcus3 | March 3, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

jmcauli1,

Hillary was not elected to the white house. Her husband was. What advice in particular are you crediting Hillary during Bill's time in office? This is not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know. She talked about how involved she was with the Peace talks in Northern Ireland. What did she do exactly?

Posted by: burgundee | March 3, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Rezko trial--too bad that didn't start a couple of weeks ago. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.


Not a thing will come of it as Obama is not on trial, did nothing wrong, and is not involved in any way with the points of the trial. But Hillary and her husband will be on trial shortly after the judge in California sets a date. And this trial will be about them and their actions. It will be hard to direct the country from a jail cell.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voiced her opposition to President Bush's pardoning of Mr. Libby, she failed to voice her opposition to her husband as he handed out 140 Presidential Pardons on their last days in the White House. Is this the first-hand experience she garnered while she was in the White House?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

This list of Pardons include individuals charged with cocaine possession, cocaine distribution, bank fraud, medicaid fraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, tax evasion, securities fraud, armed robbery, etc etc..

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

According to Wikipedia, "In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf.[11] In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme.[12]"

How can we forget the substantial donations to the Clinton Library and Hillary's senate Campaign by fugitive Mark Rich, who was pardoned by the Clintons.

Susan McDougal was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal.

Roger Clinton, Bill's half-brother was pardoned on drug charges.

The clemency of the FALN extremists. A political motivation to assist his wife's senate bid?

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=ODA1MDMx

Does the Pardon process work or is it shamefully abused? What are Obama's thoughts on this topic?

Posted by: jamesjm | March 3, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator Hillary Clinton.

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party....

Why does the all the major news organization fail to report something as serious as this...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
index.php?fa=PAGE.v iew&pageId=56868

Anyone voting for Clinton is looking forward to ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. Just what America needs. Wake up people!!! Talk about unfair press geez. They are scared to death of the Clinton machine.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 3, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else find it the image of the President of the US as a "fighter" kind of disturbing? I prefer to view our President as a statesman, a visionary, someone who we can be proud of - not some brawler. I thought the same thing when I heard John Edwards talking about "fighting" during his campaign. Do we really want a Fighter-in-chief?

Posted by: NMModerate1 | March 3, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

John makes a great point regarding the campaign management. It goes back to the idea that although Mr. Obama has slightly less experience than Mrs. Clinton (she does like to refer to her first lady experience if only obliquely as something more than it really is), Obama appears to have better judgment. He voted properly on Iraq in the beginning, he's run his campaign in about as tight a manner as could be asked for and in fact his entire career for the most part has been without great flaws. He's been honest about his youthful drug use - a truly refreshing move for a politician. He really does inspire people to want for and work for a better country. He does not use fear as a tactic to move people or garner votes - something to which Clinton has now resorted and which has become so common today that it would be laughable if it weren't so sinister.

Obama is a bit younger, but I trust his judgment more. Personally, I've always felt that what has driven Clinton is her desperation to prove something to someone - I'll leave it to you to imagine who that might be.

Posted by: lsoiseth | March 3, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Rezko trial--too bad that didn't start a couple of weeks ago. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Posted by: rmyurick | March 3, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

ryan.m.kistel wrote:

"I keep hearing Hillary talking about her 35 years of experience.

If my Dad was in retail for 35 years, can I claim that for the 18 years I lived with him I too had 18 of those 40 years of experience?

Or if my wife was chef, can I claim 10 years of culinary experience?

Posted by: ryan.m.kistel | March 3, 2008" 01:40 PM

Well Ryan, if for those 18 years you had gone to work with your Father on a regular basis and only observed him it would have given you valuable experiences about how the retail business "really" works.

But if you had gone to work with your Father and helped him over those 18 years, gave him advice, or your Father regularly sought your advice over other experts for those 18 years, and you decided to go into retail as a career then I think retail corporations around the globe would beat a path to your door!!

There was a time in America before the relentless attacks by corporate America succeeded in decimating unions when it would readily and easily have been agreed and understood by the majority of middle class Americans that such experiences would fall under the rubric of an apprenticeship.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | March 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary will win Ohio and RI. But if Barack Obama wins Texas and Vermont, the Hillary should remove herself from the race. If she does not, the democratic party will plunge into a civil war and once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

And I will blame the Clintons.

Posted by: burgundee | March 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a new low when the Washington Post allows blog comments that are not only 4-letter words, but references to and euphemisms for human excrement.
Phil in Chicago

Posted by: pnhefner | March 3, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Let us put that old rag doll on a shelf and move on with our lives..

Let us vote for the young, strong, disciplined, committed, caring, sensitive, intelligent, wise, open-minded, fearless, thoughtful, all-envisioning leader in the making!

Barak Obama for President of the United States of America!

Posted by: mdsubramonia | March 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Can someone tell me where these 35 years are coming from? Life lessons? They sure were not from official titles.

You know what, since I played guitar hero for 2 years, I am going to try out for a band and be the lead guitarist. I mean I got some of the basics down, right?

Hillary showed her true colors in South Carolina when it was clear she might not win the state. That is what turned the tide, people saw that she felt entitled to be President.

No one is entitled. Not even you Hillary.

Your smile is fake, you are cold and calculated, and with what is in the Oval office right now, we dont need another egomaniac.

This race needs to end soon, if not, It will turn into a joke. Hillary, is starting to look like Huckabee.

Posted by: kistel | March 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"I was there and saw what the witless and stupid foreign policy of the Clintons did with us. We were out there without support, without a President able to be a commander in chief, without clear orders, without a goal. And 19 of the best soldiers American can create, US Army Rangers, died there because of the incompetency of YOUR CLINTONS!


My son-in-law, who is retired military says, says no veteran will vote for a Clinton. They want to strangle the military, do not want to back them in any way, and do everything they can to hobble them. As you recall, Bill would not serve. Lots of luck if a Clinton gets into office.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Top Ten First Day Activities of President O

1. Get bust of Teddy Kennedy bronzed for the Rose Garden.
2. Make sure the Oval Office is painted purple
3. Get phone numbers of R. Castro, H. Chavez, V. Putin, make that Medlev(?), figure out telephone country code for North Korea, Afghanistan
4. Move the Lincoln portrait to the master suite
5. Call the Oprah and Ellen to invite them to the first state dinner in honor of
the Kenyan delegation
6. Elevate the White House residence staff to cabinet posts, replace with Texas Latino supporters
7. Call Hillary to ask her what to do
8. Count leftover campaign cash
9. Call old friend John McCain and apologize to him for the harsh campaign rhetoric
10. Hold a media shindig featuring the Lime Kool-aid recipe they have grown to adore

Posted by: powderruns07 | March 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama has tried to stay clear of personal attacks and mud slinging.

The Republicans will do no such thing.

I've been a Dem for as long as I can vote but HRC has way too many skeletons in the closet to go up against a war hero and win.

Do you think the Republicans are not going to rehash Whitewater, her original closed door healthcare fiasco, her vote for the war, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky and other gal pals, Black Panthers support, 12 year old rape victims, her attack on her own party's rules, Peter Paul campaign funds and Stan Lee Media, her mandatory healthcare plan, Socks, Bill's racist comments, her refusal to release her income tax form, his million dollar Russian oil consulting deal, leaving the white house with 25k worth of stuff that didn't belong to them and being forced to return it, taking money from firms mired in sexual harrassment complaints... I can go on.

They will eat her alive and we will all loose our voice and the opportunity to change the course this country is on.

There is a good book out there called the Shell game by Steve Alten. It was published in 2007 and it actually predicts this will happen. That the Dems will rip their party apart in this exact contest and the Republicans will be walk away winners. It's supposed to be a work of fiction.

Let's try to remember we are on the same team. I honestly believe Obama's motivation is to make this country a better place. He's smart, he's reasonably savvy and there are few if any skeletons hanging around. He may make mistakes but every president has.

Posted by: wbittel | March 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hilary continue to equate fighting with winning?

I want a resolver, not a perpetual warrior, for my president.

Posted by: lum | March 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Sad to see Obama supporters with such sad, sick and really offensive comments.

Dan Balz writes well but the anti-Hillary bias reals itself in so many ways.

This campaign will not be over with tomorrow unless Senator Obama tosses in the towel for the good of the Democratic party.

I and a lot others have more support and money to spend on behalf of Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: FredCDobbs | March 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I support Barack Obama.


And I've been upset with Hillary Clinton's surrogates on more than one occasion.


However, I believe we should give Senator Clinton credit for her willingness to put herself out there and wage a tough campaign.


My support for Barack Obama does not arise from some deep enmity for Hillary Clinton or her husband, the former president.


Rather, I support Barack Obama because I don't think "fighting" is enough. For, knowing a little bit about politics, I know that a president can yell and scream until she or he is blue in the face, but if that individual can't run the kind of campaign that will yield a governing majority in both houses (via a top of the ticket coattail effect), all the fight in the world won't stop a filibuster in the senate or endless fights in the house that amount to naught in terms of passed legislation.


Nancy Pelosi has said that Senator Obama - due to his ability to CONNECT with Democrats, Independents AND Republicans - will "add 75 seats to our majority in the house."


That sort of majority - one of which a divisive (49 percent negative rating) candidate like Hillary Clinton cannot deliver - is what is REQUIRED to pass ANY bill, from healthcare to aid for struggling families.


So, I believe we should all offer our respect to Hillary Clinton for a hard fought campaign AND vote for Barack Obama, get unified, and kick some tail in November.

Posted by: VitalCenter | March 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Basing your vote on the fact that she is a woman is just unimaginable. I certainly don't mind a woman president, but Hillary is NOT the one. Read her record, watch her in action, read the books about her actions, check out the teachers and her education "reform" in Arkansas. Then decide your vote.

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

When Obama knocks out Clinton tomorrow in Texas and takes Ohio from under her buisness brown, round toed shoes. I don't want to hear "We still have Pennsylvania!"

The only thing I want to hear is:

"Congratulations Barack Obama!"

Something that she has not done for the past 11 losses!

Posted by: cesalio45g | March 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Sorry my friend jacksmith but "AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!" is not true:

"The battle was over by October 4, 1993, at 6:30 AM. American forces were finally evacuated to the U.N. Pakistani base by the armored convoy and the Mogadishu Mile. In all, 19 U.S. soldiers died of wounds from the battle and another 79 were injured."

I was there and saw what the witless and stupid foreign policy of the Clintons did with us. We were out there without support, without a President able to be a commander in chief, without clear orders, without a goal. And 19 of the best soldiers American can create, US Army Rangers, died there because of the incompetency of YOUR CLINTONS!

Also:

"The Battle of Mogadishu led to a profound shift in American foreign policy, as the Clinton administration became increasingly reluctant to use military intervention in Third World conflicts (such as the massacre of an estimated 800,000 to 1,071,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus by Hutu militia groups in Rwanda in 1994), though Clinton approached Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich about the possible use of military intervention, both parties agreed such action imprudent. President Clinton also refused to mobilize U.S. ground troops in fighting the Bosnian Serb Army in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 and the Yugoslav Army in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (specifically, the province of Kosovo) in 1999, out of the concern of sacrificing American soldiers in combat, as well as repeating the mistakes of Mogadishu in 1993."

See, is that the kind of foreign policy you want on the White House? Is this kind of people you want to answer the red phone at 3 AM when Putin/Medvedev might be ordering the ICBMs to target NY, LA, or Miami, with their fingers on the trigger?

If Obama hope message gets killed by the Clinton-Bush mafia, me, and all the other "Obama Republicans" I represent, will have no alternative besides turn back to Big Mac to save our country from 4 more years of shame with the Clinton Mafia back to DC.

Posted by: mp2007 | March 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

When you compare their records and quality of campaigns -- even without counting Obama's abilility to connect with people and motivate then to vote and be involved? -- Sen. Obama is clearly the best choice for President.

People who repeat Hillary's lies and gross exaggerations -- ie, (35 years...of what? Saying his "just a jr. senator" while disregarding his 8+ years as a, Illinois state legislator, twisting his words around and having supporters keep spreading the lies, trying to hypocritcally silence people about NORMAN HSU) -- are doing a great disservice to the country. Why?

1. Because no one else but a Clinton or Bush could LOSE 11 STATES IN A ROW AND STILL GET SYMPATHETIC AND/OR FAVORED COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA. This is ridiculous!

2. Because too many Clinton supporters so blindly follow everything she says without checking that the real delusional and/or cult-like behavior fall on them -- not Obama's followers. What's the deal with her Tax Returns, for instance? Why did she only indicate any regret on record people hurt by her campaign and her husband in SC sooo long after that contest when it was apparent she was in a lurch? This is desparate, insincere and indefensible.

It's because people like her are related to live, ex-sitting Presidents that we're even still in this drawn-out mess. No more Bushes or Clintons in the White House.

Sen. Obama is clearly a great Presidential choice -- middle name and all folks, get your heads on straight. Let's get on with it and make more positive progress with our country.

Posted by: goldstate | March 3, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

TO: shoemiaw....and all th other red-faced Clinton haters...tuff!

I know you can't stand the sight of a woman who knows more than you do but then again probably the cashier down at the WalMart knows more too. At least she knows that Hillary will fight to get her and her kids Health Coverage.

Grow-p and get a life!

Posted by: JustAnotherGodlessPatriot | March 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Now, she is bragging about being a "fighter"!

We already have a "fighter" in the White House. "Bring it on". Remember that??And she voted to do just that.

It is time to stop "fighting" and to start thinking, listening, and then acting.

It is time for a change. Her strategies just dumbfound me. This is the worse tactic that she could adopt!!

Posted by: wly34 | March 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

At long last the Clinton campaign has found it's direction and how best to serve their candidate. It's all about nastiness, ugliness, fear, deception and smearing. At least the campaign knows how do ugly. When intelligence and creativity fail, go to plan B for "base" (see disgusting). Please, Obama campaign, use all possible resources to score victories everywhere tomorrow! The Clintons are ready to take you down. Please don't let that happen!

Posted by: TeddyRoosevelt | March 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton voted for George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

She voted for George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act.

She served on the board of directors of the Wal-Mart Corporation when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

Not the kind of fighter I want.

Posted by: stevefought | March 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The real issue for tomorrow's Ohio & Texas
Democratic Primary election is EXPERIENCE.
Hillary has the experience and knows how to
get the job done on issues like; economy,
foreign affairs, health care, Iraq war, and
immigration. She is a fighter and ready to
defend on behalf of the American people.
Vote smartly and vote for Sen. Clinton!!!

Go Hillary!!!

Posted by: fvidanes | March 3, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I forgot that Clinton LOST all the wars he fought... Ask any US Army Ranger about the wit strategic skills of our Casanova President... The steel of our BlackHawks are still there on the streets of Mogadishu to remind the world of the "humongous" foreign policy skills of the Clintons...

Posted by: mp2007 | March 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

How can you moderators of these posts allow the foul mouth, gutter language, that seems to escape your attention. Have you not even noticed that it is a predominance of the Obama supporters that are given to this type of language, if you can call it that?

This is the reason I spend most of my time on hillaryclinton.com where people are kind, considerate and uplifting.

Do you not have any standard here for posting?

Posted by: lilibetii | March 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is full of a lot of things. Fight might be the least of what she's full of.

Posted by: eco-pharm | March 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm voting for the Democrats in November because one thing we don't need is four more years of Bush's policies. But if Hillary is elected, I expect to see the same embarrassing incoherent mess in January,2009 that we saw when the Clintons moved into the White House in 1993, the lack of focus that caused Democrats to lose control of Congress in 1994. The way she's run her campaign says everything about her executive abilities - and it's not pretty. And when that phone rang in the middle of the night, Hillary's actual experience was limited to saying, "Wake up, Bill, it's for you." She's a smart capable woman but who is she kidding? Obama has been an elected official longer than she has and he's got the ability to compromise, not go hostile and negative when he runs into challenges. Hillary begins to remind me of Richard Nixon. Not a happy memory for this country. Oh yeah, and for all you bigots out there, from now on my middle name is Hussein. What on earth can anyone do about being named after their father? This has got to be one of the stupidest non-issues ever. Shame on you.

Posted by: greyparrot | March 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

It could be being a fighter is precisely why Sen. Clinton's much touted "35 years of experience", has not netted her many results, least of all her long talked on Universial healthcare.

That is an extremely long time, with the most excellent connections, for the yield of actual results to be so paltry. Is it possible her need to fight got in the way? There are many who have more than suggested as much in regards her universal healthcare. But even if this was not so, isn't 35 yrs a very long time to FIGHT for something with passion, zeal, intelligence and connections, yet net nothing?

I wonder this each time I hear of her years of experience. And I wonder more, why her supporters are more curious about her rival's experience than hers.

It has become something of a media joke to ask Obama supporters to name any of policies, only to get few answers. Yet I've little doubt, Sen. Clinton's supporters would fare any better. The precious few who have tried in the media have mentioned her long efforts and dedication to healthcare and child care, but they give no specifics, or even tiny steps of progress her efforts have yielded.

It is all well and wonderful to speak consistently and much on what one would like to do, but in Sen. Clinton's case, it appears these efforts are almost the sum total of her results.

That she accomplished an expanded healthcare in Ark, during her long reign as its First Lady is commmendable; but is this all she can point to? And perhaps more importantly, is this really any more than what Sen. Obama accomplished in less time during his years as Il.'s state legislator?

Perhaps it's time Sen. Clinton's supporters really looked into Sen. Clinton's 35 yr record.

Linda

Posted by: LROGERS | March 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Here is the thing the Clintonistas can't seem to assimilate.

They don't get that there are millions of people who once contributed to Clintons, and once supported Clintons, that are supporting Obama now.

They can't quite take in that it's not naivete or misogyny, but heartbreak and reality that have led us to Obama.

They will never understand the irony of having to listen to Bill Clinton talk about "fairytales" when his Presidency was the biggest Grimm fairytale of all.

When the history of this nation is finalized, his administration will go down in history as one of the great unfulfilled promises of all times.

It is the Clinton supporter who is naive, or simply incalcitrant. They either weren't around then, or have chosen to buy into the romanticized Clinton myth.

The REALITY is that Clinton rode the dot.com bubble in claiming a vibrant economy in the same illusory manner Bush rode the housing bubble.

Clinton was able to leave a surplus, because he acquiesced to the GOP in passing the Welfare Reform Act, which pulled security from untold numbers of single mothers, and padded the surplus rather than offering job training or education in its place.

We who enabled Clinton I did so in the belief that it would mean no more loathsome Attorneys General such as Ed Meese. Instead, we were given Janet Reno, who created her own little holocaust in gassing and burning the women and children of Waco, then returned little Elian to Cuba at the point of a gun, after his mother drowned bringing him here.

We enabled Clinton believing that secrecy, retribution, vindictiveness and character assassination were hallmarks of Nixon, not a Democratic administration. We were proven wrong.

Nixon handed the Imperial baton to Clinton who handed it to Bush.

We watched as gays in the military and healthcare were set back by two decades, managing to alienate people of all political persuasion in the process.

How do you halt a Democratic control of the House and Senate which has lasted for 40 years? You elect a Clinton. Let's give Congress back to the Republicans this year, shall we? Nominate a Clinton!

We are not Obama romantics. We are realists. We lived the Clinton nightmare, and have to accept our part in having caused it.

We brought to the White House an arrogance not seen since Nixon. We watched those that now claim "misogyny", slander and abuse the women callously referred to within the White House as "bimbo eruptions". We watched a Libertine President unable to control his urges, with a WMD found at last, in his trousers.

We have watched the Clinton campaign this time around, and all our fears have been validated. Bad judgement, bad behavior, sheer incompetence.

Millions of Obama supporters are former Clinton supporters. Who do you think we were voting for in 1992?

We have learned the lesson. Either you weren't around, or like Hillary and her vote on Iran LAST SEPTEMBER, you are simply incapable of learning.

Why do you think Sen. Rockefeller, chief of the Senate Intelligence Committee endorsed Obama. He lived thru Clinton I and he doesn't want Hillary anywhere near that 3AM phone call.

In any case, when you have the empirical evidence regarding an Obama administration that we have regarding Clinton, THEN get back to us.

Posted by: BushCrimeFamily | March 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I just wish those Clintonians, that are following the ONLY CANDIDATE SUPPORTED BY KARL ROVE, would at least respect English spelling and grammar.
Why all the people getting paid by (er... supporting) Clinton always have the same serious hate against the language of our forefathers?
And is good to see that Clintonians are finally calling themselves conservatives. Well, after KARL ROVE JUMPED ON THE CLINTON BOAT, I don't think they can call themselves anything else... Perhaps, Neo-Conservatives? See, we are about to have a war starting in our own backyard, with Venezuela and Ecuador invading Colombia. What is the Clinton Neo-Con campaign proposal for it? Start another war and build a "green-zone" in Caracas?

Posted by: mp2007 | March 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

How come the posts that contain profanity and personal attacks are still here, if as you say they will be removed?

Posted by: lilibetii | March 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"Given the Clinton campaign approach to all things, there is little doubt that these phrases have been carefully tested with polling and focus groups and that the words she is using are echoes of what her messagemeisters have concluded Ohioans in particular want to hear"

Mr Balz, you make me want to puke.

Posted by: zukermand | March 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Those Obama supporters who have been littering this site with personal attacks and abuses should be "rejected and denounced" by Obama.

The voters have the right to know if Obama has the right judgment in dealing with Rezko; if he has the right judgment in refusing to pay over a dozen parking tickets to the City of Cambridge for over 10 years; if he has the right judgment in borrowing the line of Deval Patrick without at least crediting him.

Posted by: hao | March 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious why Dan Balz feels putting name-calling words in the mouth of a candidate is appropriate for a journalist. It strikes me as inaccurate and gratuitously inflammatory.

Posted by: zukermand | March 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Politicalobserver1 says:

Dear fid4wp

Get real. It is totally possiblle and likely that HRC will win the nomination. Obama did not win Florida and or Michighan. What will happen with that. Texas, Ohio and Pa have not yet voted. Obama is not going to have enough delegates both elected and Super to win on the first ballot.

Dear politicalobserver1,

I am quite real. Even with Florida and Michigan he has more delegates. Both Clinton and Obama have reasonable arguments w.r.t. Michigan and Florida - their voices should be heard, but the primaries were so flawed that they are not representative. What will happen is that a deal will be struck to count their votes, once it is clear that they will not change the outcome (e.g., if Obama has enough superdelegates to win even with Michigan and Florida).

If no-one wins the first ballot, if the party is viewed as stealing the nomination from the first viable black candidate, who won more popular votes, more elected delegates, and more contests, there will be riots - real riots. Not as bad as Watts, but worse than Rodney King. News media will be re-running clips of the riots outside the Democratic convention in 1968 and comparing them to 2008. There is no argument Clinton will be able to make to the superdelegates that she hasn't already tried on the voters that will convince them to vote for her against that reality.

That's being real.

Posted by: fid4wp | March 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Will name recognition be enough for Hillary Clinton to win Ohio?

Probably so.

Name recognition holds a lot of sway in any presidential election. So the cult of personality surrounding the Clinton's name is not an unexpected thing. The pre-vote who was so prevalent, and accounted in large part for Hillary Clinton in California is a good indicator insofar as such dynamics are concerned: many people who voted early on in the process, back when the general, media-driven opinion among people was that senator Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee.

The NY Mag several glossy pages article dedicated to Chelsea Clinton, lavishly dubbed "the Clinton heiress," is also very revealing to that regard.

The Clinton campaign's effort at portraying Hillary Clinton as "a fighter and a doer and a champion," seems to be an effective strategy in concealing the fact that she is part of the old guard, and that first and foremost she is a product of the establishment. Most people don't look at it this way though and they just think of her husband - there is little doubt that Bill Clinton residual popularity in Ohio will give Hillary Clinton a boost on Tuesday. (A recently interviewed Ohio voter expressed her hope that Bill Clinton would walk by her at the event in Mansfield so she could give him a big hug. "I like Hillary," she said, "but I love Bill.")

I don't know. Myself I have never been very comfortable with dynasties. There is that saying that "politicians and diapers have one thing in common: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reason." Whoever it was who said that, probably got it right. While America's beginnings are based in a rejection of monarchy and of cronyism (the 22nd Amendment - presidential term limit - is about stopping this from coming about by other means.) The problem is that people still are pretty much in love with monarchy - maybe there is something still deeply embedded in our genes about that.

Posted by: marnie_bowen | March 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

How can you moderators of these posts allow the foul mouth, gutter language, that seems to escape your attention. Have you not even noticed that it is a predominance of the Obama supporters that are given to this type of language, if you can call it that?

This is the reason I spend most of my time on hillaryclinton.com where people are kind, considerate and uplifting.

Do you not have any standard here for posting?

Posted by: lilibetii | March 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA? Are some of you serious?

Crying about low-paying assembly jobs being outsourced? Ever consider the Higher Paying Management and Training Jobs were filled by Americans getting to live well in Exotic Lands?

Want something to Cry about?

Ten Million Skilled Jobs in Construction, Autos, and Services, taken under the Table by Criminal Employers hiring Illegal Workers(Who the Democrats LOVE!), who have dodged paying around $150 BILLION /Year, while Destroying our Schools, Hospitals Communities and more with themselves and their Families RIGHT HERE!

The Dimocrat Socialists LIKE what is happening!

Difference between Them, and McCain? As the Enforcer, not a Legislator anymore, I trust John McCain to Enforce our Labor Laws-Especially the Requirements to file W-4's, and I trust Him NOT to appoint Libbie Judges who BLOCK efforts to crack down on ID Theft! :-(

I'd trust him more, if he showed the intelligence to get Mitt Romney as his VP! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama's qualifications are not even enough to get him elected president of Kenya

Posted by: agravante | March 3, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, after your loss in Texas, it's on to Jonestown for you and your minions.

I will gladly pour the Kool-Aid.

Posted by: filmex | March 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Definitely, current big MO is on Hillary Clinton's side.

Just look at today's (March 3 rd) polls. All you see are PLUSES on Clinton side over Obama, except Zogby which is family owned (John and James/President of the Arab American Institute ) by Obama superdelegate anyway. Zogby said Obama will win California by 12%, lost by 10%. This guy is off by 22% only and still has room to work with 78% in next poll.

Here is the source link for your pleasure:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I strongly prefer Barack Obama for president, because I believe that he possesses traits and skills that will make him a better president. If you compare how the Clinton and Obama campaigns have been run, it is clear that Obama has been better organized state by state, has more effectively managed its campaign budget and has had a more consistent message to the electorate throughout the campaign. Surely this is evidence of each candidate's skills and abilities!

Regardless, I admire Senator Clinton's willingness to fight for something she wants. I just hope that if she does not achieve the results she needs in Texas and Ohio, she will withdraw from the race.

Posted by: MichaelH3 | March 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

So at what point today will Hillary shed a tear? When she loses tomorrow to Obama, I feel sorry for anybody in her warpath - her staff and Secret Service detail. People will be fired, screamed at, and belittled. Yes, the true Hillary that America somehow fails to see - the one reminiscient of a psycho ex-girlfriend. What goes around comes around Hillary - your day of reckoning awakes and it will laugh you in your face as you fall.

Posted by: john.seddon | March 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I cannot go an hour watching news, reading blogs, or articles without hearing hillary or newspeople talking about what a "fighter" Hill is. Is this supposed to appeal to me as a voter? Do you think I want another bully in the white house? Just cause she is a woman she is not supposed to be seen as a bully? Let me tell ya, she is a bully!!! she scares the crap outta me, anyway.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | March 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

mp2007:

I was not aware anyone had given gratuituous advice for me to look for a job. I'm retired, so I'll pass on working at all anymore ; )

Therefore, Hillary DIANE Clinton is not my "boss" so I have no idea if she's going to denounce/reject KARL ROVE's support, but the most logical reason for not providing her Income Tax Return is that NO PRIOR NOMINEE has ever done that before the Convention.

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious! Waaahhh, The Mean Conservatives are picking on his Middle Name! :-(

Don't call him "Hussein"! It makes him sound Islamic! Waaahhhhh! :-(

And "Barack" "Osama"-Oops, "Obama"(Honest Mistake-Really!),

is just Sooooooo Judeo/ Christian! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

There's a Chinese proverb that we should know the truth from facts: the bottom line here is that Hillary Clinton is factually the best qualified candidate by virtue of her well- documented, original and enlightened approach to a myriad of vitally important issues as US Senator from NY. I've studied her positions on international, domestic, economic and social issues which, incidentally, are available for anyone to peruse on the Internet. As far as I'm concerned, the record speaks for itself. I know his won't convince anyone ideologically predisposed differently to her positions. And I write not to prove or disprove what the other candidate says, but write what I do know. NY State voters elected and reelected her and not without cause: Just as few short months ago she stood as the justifiably odds on choice as nominee.
What cause would there be to for voters withhold their support now? Believe me; I for sure have neither the wit, nor words, to forcefully convince anyone of my choice for President: I only tell you that which I and, hopefully, you yourselves do know. If we, all of us, have not lost our reason please, for the good of the nation, support her!

Posted by: jstein9811 | March 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

sallylinuslucy:

I would agree that ONLY God knows if any of us are real Christian, so maybe we can leave the ad hominem attacks out of it -- back on topic, however, I am NOT suggesting that one's religion determines qualifications for political office -- in fact, the Constitution specifically prohibits such a religious test. Obama is unfit for Office whether he is a secret Muslim agent or not.

fid4wp:

Don't forget Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

NY State Senator Hillary promissed 200,000 new jobs to the state when elected, to date: MINUS 30,000 jobs!

The Clinton's have been trying to throw the Peter Paul vs Clinton case out of court for 4 years now: http://m-lib108.production.bigcharts.com/Portfolio.

She voted for the war in IRAQ and it was only on the 20th Debate... I REPEAT the 20TH debate that she finally admits - she would take that vote back. A debate she called for!

She was caught by Tim Russert flip-flopping on NAFTA - to win over OHIO voters.

She has failed as a campaign leader, she fails to motivate people and frankly she has shown a lack of judgement when voting in the senate.

Barack Obama has ran a successful campaign, has managed his funds much better by spending them on needed TV ads rather than donuts! He is focused on his goals and shows me that these are qualities we need in our next president.

OBAMA 2008 and 2012

Posted by: cesalio45g | March 3, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Dear fid4wp

Get real. It is totally possiblle and likely that HRC will win the nomination. Obama did not win Florida and or Michighan. What will happen with that. Texas, Ohio and Pa have not yet voted. Obama is not going to have enough delegates both elected and Super to win on the first ballot. Obama has really screwed up with the NAFTA stance sying one thing to Canada and another to American Voters. Obama is going down! Also he needs to to get some real experience becasue right now he has now. Obama is a great speaker but not a leader and policy maker.

Posted by: politicalobserver1 | March 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD did you follow our advice to look for a job? I don't think the Clinton Mafia will have more money to keep paying you after they get rolled over tomorrow...
And, can you explain why your boss doesn't release her Income Tax Return fillings? Too much money coming from Sicily? Also, what your boss will say after having KARL ROVE showing her such a beautiful support as he did yesterday on NYT? KARL ROVE, that same one from the ballots burning in Florida, the same one that developed the Iraq occupation war strategy that drained our economy (oh I forgot that your boss supported the war, as she helped to sign the NAFTA treaties and STEALING the jobs of American workers...). Is she going to denounce/reject KARL ROVE support? Or is she letting her mask fall and let America know that the Clinton Mafia and the Bush Neo-Con gang are together on their mission to destroy our beautiful country?

Posted by: mp2007 | March 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is pathetic. I would have voted for her, but somehow she turns me off. I think that she is desperate, because she is under pressure, and her real feelings are exposed. The only thing is if she can have enough money to BUY the voters, that would be OK. On the other hand Obama is cool and the MAJOR, who I assume will be the next President, is holding as steady as ever, and watching Hillary's fray...Go BIG MAC....

Posted by: daxjen13 | March 3, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing Hillary talking about her 35 years of experience.

If my Dad was in retail for 35 years, can I claim that for the 18 years I lived with him I too had 18 of those 40 years of experience?

Or if my wife was chef, can I claim 10 years of culinary experience?

Posted by: ryan.m.kistel | March 3, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Why does she have to keep insisting she is full of fight? Has this worked up to now? Once she got her clock cleaned in Iowa and then again on Super Tuesday, and then again in the Potomac states, and ten again in Wisconsin, she went from the "annointed one, I deserve this, it's mine" candidate to the victim-underdog-"fighter"; blaming Obama, the media, caucases, small states, her campaign manager, etc., etc. Face it, she is a lackluster candidate with enough negative baggage to insure a defeat by McCain.

Posted by: Dahveed1 | March 3, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It's not the fight, it's the soldier's tactics:

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/authentic-change.html

"Authentic Change

The WP reports today that Obama has "thrown away the script" in Ohio, turning from his stump speech to a series of town hall meetings.

Ohio and Texas are tight. The contest is too close to call. This is, for a campaign, a "red phone" moment.

Note how Obama responds.

Instead of an array of tactical shifts in persona, Obama shows the strength and fortitude that he has demonstrated all along--in a kind of reverse Rove (recall that Rove was famous for taking his adversary's greatest strength and attacking it) taking his greatest ability and putting it to the side, moving from score to improvisation, to further answer the questions of the people--something he has done all along the campaign trial, but now is putting aside his greatest strength to emphasize.

Note what he could have done: He could have gone on the attack, derogating Hillary's past through the ad hominem methods all too recently seen. He could have attempted to change the presentation of his personality, in order to find the persona that consultants recommend, changing his tone, his emotions, shifting through traits like a anxious shuffle through a deck of cards, searching for the combination that would meet the seeming demands of the day. In a moment of pressure--at 3 .A.M.--he could have responded with panic and artifice.

Instead, he moves *away* from his strength, and presents himself simply before the people.

This is judgment, which arises from a known and consistent self. It does not arise, despite experience, from a self that uncertain, fearful, and therefore driven by fear, to change under the pressures of the moment.

This is what will count when genuine moments of crisis occur in our future evenings, in our 3 A.M. moments, and in the early dawn."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/authentic-change.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 3, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Ole thunder-thighs is finished!

Posted by: pjzovistoski | March 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

It is no longer possible for Clinton to win the nomination in 2008, and she must know that.

If I use CNN's count, she is behind by 153 pledged delegates, with 1039 left to allocate. That means, if my math is correct, in order to pull even in pledged delegates she will need to get over 57 percent (596) of the rest of the delegates, or to put it another way, a greater than 14-point lead in the rest of the contests. That just isn't possible. And the super delegates are not going to take the nomination away from the first viable black candidate, when he clearly won more popular votes, more pledged delegates, and more contests (unless they want to see another convention like 1968).

I have to believe that she is now planning for 2012 or 2016 rather than 2008.

She would certainly have a better shot in 2012 against McCain than against Obama. Running against Obama as a sitting Democrat, when he had beaten her before, would be almost impossible. But if Obama loses the general election against McCain, she can easily get an "I-told-you-so" Democratic nomination in 2012. In that case, she may think it to her advantage to stay in the race and wound Obama as much as possible, as long as she can do it without alienating too many voters.

Posted by: fid4wp | March 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I am increasingly disappointed in Hillary. Whereas I used to be neutral on her candidacy, I now wish she would quit for one major reason -- not because I mind her continuing to run but because she is damaging the dems' chance to win the general by her sabotaging of another potential candidate AND is making herself look bad for the general election if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: vera1 | March 3, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

She only seems to get a surge in votes out of sympathy when she's down. It would be no way to lead a nation.

Posted by: unique_id | March 3, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The time is now and Obama must win both Ohio and Texas. With all the money, support from fainting young worshippers, glamorous endorsements, the cause of stopping the Iraq war, media love, and saturated air ads in the living rooms of both Ohio and Texas, it is time that he closes the deal. If he can't, he should accept the reality that Hillary will fight him on and on until convention. Can he deliver or can't he? Tomorrow is his day to win or perhaps to loose.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 3, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

One thing is for sure- click on the chart in this article and you can see that Hillary is closing the gap on the number of Google searches:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

That is a 30-day chart, thus not representative of the year, which still has Barack way "ahead." Yet, the 30-day Google, shows Clinton may be able to make a break here... (For what it is worth, but for sure says something about the young vote, which has been a strong point for Obama.)

This just may be the ole', "A day late and a dollar short" case though.

Posted by: davidmwe | March 3, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Lady Macbeth is not full of fight.

She is full of s#*t!

Posted by: nads1 | March 3, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Jake: And only God knows if YOU are a real Christian too. I'm guessing you're not, b/c Christianity teaches peace and tolerance, but you're suggesting that one's religion determines qualifications for political office. You sound like Hitler, persecuting the Jews, or the Spanish Inquisition, also persecuting the Jews and other faiths. Barack Obama is a Christian and always has been- end of story. Enough of your sick smear campaign, b/c in the United States of America, we don't have a state religion: protestant, catholic, presbyterian, jewish, buddhist- we're all part of America. Now please focus on the issues.

Posted by: sallylinuslucy | March 3, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I suspect, that the people focusing on his middle name are probably not smart enough to offer valid criticisms about him.

I do hope, we can one day move past those who prejudge individuals based upon names, race, gender, or other superficial means.

Posted by: wolfi101 | March 3, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Let's compare the managerial abilities of the two candidates by looking at how they managed their campaigns.

Hillary started off with a tremendous head start. She had a 20 percentage point lead on the field in the polls. She had a large lead in pledged super delegates and she had more money than all the other candidates combined at the start of the campaign. Obama was one of 7 other candidates for the nomination.

Since that time, Hillary went into the primary season with no plan for the elections after Super Tuesday. She has fired her campaign manager and top aids. She did not manage her finances and ran out of money in January. She ignored the small states and has lost 11 elections since Super Tuesday.

Obama has managed his campaign with a skill that will be studied for years to come. He motivated people not only to vote, but also to contribute in a way never before seen in the nation's history. He executed a plan to win the final half of the primaries. His campaign staff is together and motivated.

Which one of these candidates has demonstrated the better judgment and managerial skills?

Posted by: john | March 3, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary knocked out a lot of Ohio families with NAFTA! A million jobs went overseas! Now Hillary is asking the families that lost jobs to vote for her? ...
We counter her negative ads with our own ...
Courting all Moms for Obama ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSpBUxsgAU ...
Hang On Sloopy ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oPiBSktp6M ...
Also Hillary don't call us at 3 am. General Merrill "Tony" McPeak; Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force (1990-1994) has already taken care of the problem!

Posted by: cooday | March 3, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a lightweight. We need grounded, experienced fighter like Clinton in the Whitehouse, not that smart-alec airhead Obama.

Posted by: princeps2 | March 3, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The thought of putting a first term senator into a presidentia race is truly frightening. Isn't this the guy who failed to win a seat in congress? What credentials does he have, other than ambition? And friends who sing and talk?

Hilary Clinton has the chops both to win the presidential election and to run a country that is seriously in need on humanitarian guidance.

Posted by: matrixmail | March 3, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

[IMG]http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee57/Markie_090/GivebarackTHEMONEYObama.jpg[/IMG]

Posted by: HurtByAmeriquest | March 3, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator Hillary Clinton.

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party....

Why does the all the major news organization fail to report something as serious as this...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
index.php?fa=PAGE.v iew&pageId=56868


It will be hard to being President when in JAIL

Amazing!

Posted by: georgebernardkeith | March 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

maricopajoe "hillary clinton = human fecal matter"

Seriously, how old are you? That is just disturbing.

Posted by: kkarageorge | March 3, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

maricopajoe-Now, Now.

Why don't you tell us what you REALLY think about Billary?

LOL! :-)

Personally, I prefer "Libbies"

The Dingleberries of Politics! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

hillary clinton = human fecal matter

Posted by: maricopajoe | March 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

And Maybe Obasama got word about Novakula's column coming up?

But, what's that to Hsu? :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton very well may win in Ohio. The question is by how much? The polls seem to show a late move toward her.

My guess is Obama has been a bit quiet lately. Perhaps he is coordinating the ground effort in Ohio and Texas? The same quiet ground effort that turned many recent contests into routs?

Posted by: steveboyington | March 3, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Only God knows "for sure" that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a devout Christian ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Trying to bribe all the Unions, I'd imagine she was full of "Pork".

Personally, I hate it when Candidates buy their Votes, with the People's Money.

But, what's a Dimocrat Socialist to do? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

SHAME ON YOU, HILLARY CLINTON!!! You are a liar and a con artist!!! Your 2 newest ads are disgusting!!! The truth is...


1. A different Foreign Relations Subcommittee chaired by John Kerry has jurisdiction over Afghanistan. And the full Foreign Relations Committee was the one that held several hearings on the military efforts there.


2. As for being "too busy campaigning" to do their jobs... Clinton and McCain are both using that excuse! McCain was "too busy" to vote on the Economic Stimulus Package. Hillary was "too busy" to vote on Chris Dodd's amendment NOT to grant immunity to the telecomm companies and protect our civil liberties AND "too busy" to turn over her income tax returns (which we all know we will NEVER SEE).


You are such a snake!!! Insinuating that Obama is serving his own interests at our expense while you do more of that than anybody! And NOT defending him as a devout Christian, which you know very well he is!!! You are a lowly, loathsome creature.


Please drop out now before you completely destroy our party!!!

Posted by: shoemiaw | March 3, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary DIANE Clinton will win in Ohio -- mark my words!!!

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company