Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In Pa. Address, Clinton Homes in on Economy

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is introduced prior to delivering a housing policy speech, March 24, 2008, during a campaign stop at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. (AP.)

By Anne E. Kornblut
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton laid out a plan to stem the growing housing crisis, calling for greater lender transparency and assistance for individual homeowners and communities to prevent more foreclosures.

Clinton said that just as the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns, so too should it assist regular people. "Let's be clear: when families are losing their homes, that's also a financial crisis," Clinton said today in a speech at the University of Pennsylvania.

Clinton has lashed herself to the issue of homeowner insecurity in recent weeks as part of a strategy to sell herself as the only candidate with a grasp of bread-and-butter matters important to downscale voters. That approach, which helped her win Ohio, is the core of her method in Pennsylvania as she struggles to overtake Sen. Barack Obama in the popular vote in the contests ahead.

Aspects of her plan have been criticized for potentially increasing rates on new mortgages as some existing ones are frozen in place. Clinton has called for a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures on owner-occupied houses purchased with subprime loans. She would also freeze subprime adjustable-rate mortgages in place for as long as five years, or until the mortgages can be converted into affordable, fixed loans.

Another piece of Clinton's program is the establishment of a high-level emergency working group to show the government is "taking our economic crisis seriously." The Obama campaign issued a release declaring that their candidate had been the first to request such a working group, in a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasure Secretary Hank Paulson, last year.

Each campaign claimed their candidate was the first to recognize the economic problems, and to offer proposals to fix them.

Clinton embraced a proposal already on the table, by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, to expand the role that the Federal Housing Administration can play in either restructuring -- or outright buying -- at-risk mortgages.

"This is too big of a crisis for us to let either ideology or fears of political demagoguing to keep us from putting every option on the table," Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling added in a conference call.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 24, 2008; 11:56 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Who's the Stronger Democrat for the General Election?
Next: Anti-Clinton Group's Appeal Brushed Aside by Supreme Court


Posted by: balabo_so | May 11, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: balabo_so | May 11, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: balabo_on | April 22, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

What planet are these pundits from when they say Murtha does not help Clinton and Richardson does not help Obama. P.R. went from a slam dunk for Clinton to a maybe. Murtha is worth 5 basis points in PA. After Carolina it will probably be impossible for Hillary to get the delegates or the popular vote. She lost TX in delegate count and will find it harder to make any case without the popular vote. It is easy enough for the two candidates to set up a web site and mailing address for MI and FL voters to register. They both can present this evidence of those states voter support to the DNC for possible delegate awards.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 30, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I really had to laugh. I am reading a columnist for the Washington Post who doesnt know the proper word to use.

Clinton didn't 'homes' in on the economy.

You may want to look up the word hones:

hone in:

To move or advance toward a target or goal: The missiles honed in on the military installation.

To direct one's attention; focus: The lawyer honed in on the gist of the plaintiff's testimony.

tr.v. honed, hon·ing, hones

To sharpen on a fine-grained whetstone.

To perfect or make more intense or effective: a speaker who honed her delivery by long practice.

Where did you attend college ?

Posted by: sfm60447 | March 28, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: irmadf9 | March 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Hil-LIE-re" AKA Hillary Clinton

Posted by: mlhkfh | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Hil-LIE-re" AKA Hillary Clinton

Posted by: mlhkfh | March 26, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

She wants Greenspan to fix this problem? Greenspan and Billary caused it to begin with!!!

This started with Clinton deregulating the banking industry! In 1999, Clinton (with Greenspan's urging) repealed the Glass-Steagall restrictions on banks owning investment banks and insurance companies, a law that had been in effect for over half a century! Congress put in this law in place because the conflict of interest of bank holding companies led to tens of millions of Americans' joblessness and home foreclosures in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Clinton & Clinton are closet Republicans - they put through NAFTA, put through telecom deregulation & banking deregulation among other Republican ideologies. If you are happy with result and want more, support Billary.

And don't get me started on Greespan's Social Security scam of the baby boomers. He doubled the SS taxes on baby boomers under Ronnie Raygun in order to pay for the retirement of their parents AND themselves, helped the politicians to steal the extra money and then cried "boo hoo, no money for baby boomer retirement!" I despise Billary, Republicans and Greenspan.

Posted by: hlcolbert | March 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

What about comments on her support for Nafta thats on tape? (Another mis-spoke?) Does that count for anything. Don't forget the refusal to address the war issue until she didn't have a choice.

Posted by: MILLER123 | March 25, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

After being ask for comments all week concerning Rev. Wright, today after being caught for mis-speaking on several occassions touting her foreign policy, she decides to issue her comments on Wright and Obama. This kind of game is what the country doesn't need. The issue was about foreign policy experience, now its back on Wright, Obama and Imus. All of us are not ignorant! And I can't stand it when someone thinks that we are!
Everybody can't be "played."

Posted by: MILLER123 | March 25, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

please please shows you what type of people who support barack.

Posted by: mthomas722 | March 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

This is an interesting part of the speech that was not included in this article

"Clinton said she would propose legislation to provide mortgage companies with protection against the threat of lawsuits from investors who have bought the loans." (from Reuters)

Posted by: michael | March 25, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

hillary is the winner!!!!
obama is writing his resignation letter NOW. and blaming race for his loss

Posted by: clinsupor | March 24, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --


"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!


The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

Posted by: jreno20 | March 24, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

After hearing Obama's speech in response to the Wright clips, I am now more sure than ever that Obama will be the next President. The race is actually of very little concern to me anymore. He will (has already) beat Hillary. AND Obama will easily defeat McCain in the general. There is not even a question anymore... everyone knows he is just better.

Posted by: ChrisStewart | March 24, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Governor Bill Richardson came out to finally endorse Barrack Obama. Richardson said that Obama's' speech on race was his deciding factor. The speech showed the leadership qualities Richardson was looking for. I have to agree with Richardson, as he said that, it's time for Clinton to step down, and the Democrats to come together.
Clinton cannot beat Obama's numbers no matter HOW they parse it. That is an undeniable fact. Clinton's campaign knows this very well. As Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the house) said, "This is a delegate race, period. If the super delegates turn over the will of the people, it won't be good for the Democratic Party" When Clinton thought she would have it in the bag, after California. Florida and Michigan did not matter to her then. Just like Clinton dismissed the 11 state streak Obama had, because "NONE OF THOSE SATES COUNT ANYWAY". How "disenfranchised" do those sates feel, by Clinton? What an atrocious thing to say. Clinton goes on to attack Obama this way:
He has not crossed the "Commander in Chief threshold" like John McCain has.
He cannot be trusted to answer the phone at 3am.
His only experience is a speech from 2002.
That he is disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida (even though she agreed to the same rules he did when those states stepped out of line in the primary process).
And, as Bill Clinton intimated , he doesn't love our country, like Hillary and McCain do.
Those are some serious blows against someone in your own party and might seriously hurt his chances of winning the general election. In fact, every day that Senator Clinton stays in the race is another day she spends money damaging Senator Obama. And every dollar she spends is a dollar in John McCain's pocket.
It almost makes you ask - does she want him to lose?
If Obama wins, then Senator Clinton couldn't run again until at least 2016 (unless something goes terribly wrong). At which point, she would be almost as old as John McCain is now. If she's ever going to become president, she has this narrow window.
On the other hand, if Senator Obama sustains serious political wounds going into the general election and winds up losing, then Hillary Clinton is sitting pretty in 2012.
That's how much Clinton cares about the Democratic Party!!
Obama has two former presidential candidates backing him now. They know who has the best chance with the Republicans in Nov.

Just because Obama did not bring up the past with Clinton, do not think the republicans won't.
When the Clintons tax records, Bills' Foundation, and Library funding sources are revealed, it could destroy the party for decades. There is 1/2 BILLION dollars in funding alone to explain! If it were all kosher, it would have been known long ago. There is an ongoing fraud lawsuit in California, which the media has not been reporting as well.
Here is the link to the YouTube video explaining this upcoming fraud trial in California. I believe it is April 24th, 2008.

Hillary Clinton cannot be elected under these circumstances.
There will be another time for a woman to run the Whitehouse. It's not this woman, not this time.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 24, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Since the amount of homes defaulting is projected at 3 million. And the cost of these homes is around $400,000.00 dollars. We are talking about 1.2 Trillion dollars of homes at at least 6 percent interest.
This is 72 billion dollars of interest a year. Hillary only offered up 30 billion, like the bail out of Bear Stearns.

30 Billion dollars won't even scratch the surface of this massive dirivatives mess.

Her husband Bill Clinton told the entire world he had a surplus, and was paying down the national debt. What a lie!
Check out Yahoo and search on their search engine for,( Public Debt to the Penny).
On the left hand side of the page it has a column, (Historical Debt Outstanding) on it.

The last time the debt was paid down was 1957. This is the Treasury Departments website. They have no reason to lie about the debt. They aren't running for office.

George Bush gave everyone a tax cut on Bill Clinton's lie.

If Bill Clinton can't count.....and Hillary Clinton can't count.....why should we trust them with the United States finances? It would be nice if one of these people had more than a fourth grade education in basic mathematics.

Posted by: bzzpd | March 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Many people complain about NAFTA being the cause of job loss. However, do people really know the reality?!?! Many businesses may have moved South but many are now moving to where labor is even cheaper, e.g., China. Who are you going to blame then? I believe that there should be some checks and balances on NAFTA, as Hillary, has suggested to ensure that Americans domestically have safeguards when businesses do leave an area for greater profits and that the US also benefits from such open trading. I believe that Hillary has the experience in working with NAFTA and international leaders (in different capacities) to discuss the pros and cons of it AND TO TAKE ACTION. She goes back a long time and will strongly advocate for the United States. We also need to wake up to the reality that jobs not staying in this region, in this hemisphere. Just seeing how our own security is being outsourced is a matter of concern. Who are you going to blame then? As a person that actually lives in the midst of what is one of NAFTA's crossborder highways, Highway 35 that runs from Mexico through Texas, we have also been expecting some of the benefits to come our way. It hasn't happened. However, I do feel that at least there is some hope if Hillary can come in and make the necessary adjustments. I am more leary about jobs that are being lost and will continue to be lost to other parts of the world. At least here, we can work with our neighbors, if the right presidential candidate comes in that has the prior experience with Canada and Latin American. If not, not only do we continue losing economically but also politically to such tyrants as Hugo Sanchez (and it is not HEWGO like Obama said in one of his speeches/debates). There is so much in stake that an Obama-intern could not possibly be able to do in 4 years--unless he hands down those obligations to his subordinates--like Bush has done.

Posted by: ergaleas | March 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

A lot of Clinton supporters don't want truth - the truth is Obama is ahead in the popular vote and the number of pledged delegates. So they play the denial game and say - no, SCREAM - that he's sunk because of the flaps with Wright and Rezko that will be in the country's rear-view mirror by the end of summer.

They're hoping, of course, that all the noise is enough to drown out the chorus of approval that Obama has received from the folks that voted for him, and the organizations that have endorsed him.

I'd much rather have an administration - and supporters - that can look the truth straight in the eye and act on it, rather than proclaim lies in the shrillest voice possible.

I'm a Democrat who knows math. It was my major in college. Believe me, Obama has the lead and isn't out of the running by any stretch imaginable.

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

This is the kind of issue that is right in HRC's perceived "wheelhouse". And the economy is going to get worse, at least in the time leading up to this very important election. But I think it is legitimate to ask if the GOP is going to allow HRC to make progress on this issue any more than they allowed a real debate to occur on Health Care Reform in 1993? They rarely approached the subject on its merits (the end result was called "Socialized Medicine" when it actually was a reinforcement of the employer based system that is crumbling before our eyes). Obama may fare little better, but at least the GOP have to create a new playbook to thwart any ideas his team comes up with.

The answer is no. Neither Obama nor HRC is going to be able to deal with the economy with a free hand, certainly not without being labeled as being "against our wonderful free enterprise system, baseball and mom's apple pie." You know: the system that is going to have millions of people lose their homes in the next couple of years and see several thousand foreign investors become long distance landlords for many of us.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for a better system. It simply means that we should not expect the free marketeers to be any less resisting of changing business as usual. Their patrons make money on the transaction, no matter who ends up being the owner, and they interpret anything that restricts their ability to extract profit from the highest bidder to be "Un-American."

Posted by: Odquest | March 24, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is unelectable.

In spite of the media's 24/7 promotion of Obama he will NEVER be electable. His negatives are skyrocketing. Wright, Moss, Rezko, Crown are devastating to Obama. No amount of money will change this fact.

It's OVER. The Dems need to rally behind Hillary ASAP of it's Pres. McCain. I will vote for McCain of Hillary is not the nominee."
Posted by: TAH1

Hey, TAH1 - nice fantasy.

"Unelectable" was the same chestnut the mainstream media trotted out when they tried to savage Al Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. "Unelectable" is a term that means, simply, "I think my candidate's gonna win." It's not a scientific term, and it has no real meaning.

Obama has won MANY more states than Hillary, and leads in the popular vote, as well as in the number of delegates. Bill Richardson and Rolling Stone both endorsed Obama within the last week. And don't sneer at that Rolling Stone endorsement - lots of baby boomers and young adults read that magazine. And they're mad as fire over what this administration has done to this country over the last eight years.

One newspaper reported, over the weekend, that Clinton may be experiencing financial problems again. She got a bounce on the Wright scandal, but that was from faint-hearted fence-sitters who would probably not have supported Obama in the general election anyway. (My personal feeling is they supported him because it was fashionable to say they supported a black man for president, not because they really believed in his plans for the country.) Obama still has a HUGE number of supporters, more than enough to fend off any late challenges Clinton and her camp cook up (especially her attack-dog campaign manager).

Obama has shown himself to be a man of uncommon grace the last couple of weeks - from the Rezko thing to the Wright flap, he has been gracious and dignified. I don't think Hillary would have been able to pull off the same barrage of bad news with the same degree of grace. THAT'S the kind of guy I want handling REAL crises (like the economy), not just election theater.

You, TAH1, on the other hand, ARE unelectable.

Posted by: wpreader2007 | March 24, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

You Clinton supporters sound like Republicans. What has the world come to? The views of Obama and Clinton are almost identical. How can you say you won't vote for the other in the presidential elections unless you don't really believe in their views?

And using experience as the reason to vote for Hillary is a mistake. If she really runs on experience then McCain trumps her in this department. The white house is controlled by the GOP, so what we need is a candidate of change. This is something Hillary will need to morph into if she wins the nomination and wants to win the presidential race.

As for winning that nomination, Hillary is statistically in a very bad position. She would need to win over 60% in every state to overcome the pledged delegate lead of Obama.

In the end, Obama and Hillary are of the same party and have almost identical views. And they both have the background and experience to do the job. They are both good candidates and I wish people realized this and stopped bashing the other candidate so badly.

Posted by: alvintr | March 24, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Can we at least hear her out? I know the math is impossible and I believe that Obama is a superior candidate, but can we listen anymore? I made a truce with my Hillary supporting sibling, so I may be the only one, but I will support the democratic nominee.

I am persuaded that Obama has consistently shown better judgment, and Hillary's decision to be managed by Penn and Wolfson has cost her big time. Bill is a drag on the ticket. Hillary will energize the right. Her good intentions will likely be torpedoed and obstructed to a greater degree than Obama's. He has shown a greater willingness to work well with other legislators on matters of importance. I am glad for the health care for veterans, but was that a truly tough call?

Any demo plan will be a huge improvement. W and Cheney have done the impossible: made America nostalgic for Voodoo economics.

Posted by: kazou | March 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

TAH1, 'unelectable' Obama has practically won the primary. The ticket Obama/Richardson, which would be very reasonable because Rechardson pertinent experience would compliment Obama, would win general election without many problems.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Jesus would have voted for Obama.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is not better on economy than Obama is. It is because of Clinton-Bush dynasty's activity the current economy's shape in the USA is so pitiful. Mrs. Clinton is no economic guru, just vice versa. She is offering a lot social programs. The problem is the country has the huge deficit ; and the taxpayers should pay for all these programs with new taxes. Clinton-Bush are to blame for what we have now. And Clintons do not deserve the second chance.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary definitely has the upper hand in the housing debate. Obama's mired in the Rezko affair while nobody can decipher what Magoo's talking about. She's been forced to take care of everything at the Chappaqua Estate while "Mr. Wonderful" prowls the Harlem streets at night. Go, girl!

Posted by: filoporquequilo | March 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The Obama followers reflect very little of that which their anointed leader preaches. Are they a reflection of him? Hmmm.

That cut paste letter...wonder where they got it from, hmmm. His web page perhaps? It doesn't matter. Hillary still made the headlines and she got one over him.

Obama followers; chill. Let's see what happens after June 3rd. If your man is still standing straight, not wobbling and shaking his head like in the cartoons and is able to go on without taking a vacation to the Caribbean, and he has won most of the primaries (not caucuses please you know that is an inefficient obsolete system) and he has managed to even increase his lead, then he will get the nomination.

Don't be angry if he is being made to work hard for this nomination. It's the first time in his political career he has worked hard for anything and please don't refer to that tepid loss at the beginning of his career. He has been prepped, dressed and rehearsed for this with a lot of power behind him. He had to lose one to look legit.

Posted by: poh123 | March 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It's so easy to be a democrat, a.k.a. socialist, with every answer to every question begining with "more government". So much for originality Hillary.

Posted by: cschotta1 | March 24, 2008 05:25 PM
You forget that "more government" doesn't mean spending "government money," it means spending the people's money.

If people want to vote for Hillary and her programs to help Americans, then why should you complain? It's their money, not the governments.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 24, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Howdy 999,

I did not hear about the legislation Obama tried to take away from someone else. What was that about?

I do know that Obama is the result of Emil Jones, the Illinois President of the State Senate, called "the kingmaker," and Jones yanked high profile bills from other lawmakers and put Obamas name on them to "enhance his political resume."

Jones and Obama and Rezko and the Illinois Governor met with Auchi (Saddams friend and ally) right after Obama won the U.S. senate seat. Obama has conveniently "forgotten" meeting Auchi. He also, previously, "forgot" about going to Wrights church for 20 years. He got away with, Na, Na, Na," during a debate until Wrights vitriolic videos surfaced recently. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Hillary. You know what is important on the day to day issues that mean everything to each one of us.

I can't wait until you are president. I remember the Clinton years, the surplus, the gains, the early retirements etc.

Love you Hillary, you go girl. me, my three daughters and my three granddaughters are only going to vote for you.

We are on strike and will not vote for another man for president, no matter how cute or good a talker or what color.

One Independent woman voter who won't vote for McCain and who won't vote for Obama

Posted by: lndlouis | March 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

It's so easy to be a democrat, a.k.a. socialist, with every answer to every question begining with "more government". So much for originality Hillary.

Posted by: cschotta1 | March 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

If we are to judge on facts and experience, let us have some. Here is the financial stats offered by the FEC on each candidate:

[Nothing intimidating. Easy to understand.]


(FYI: The PAC contribution category are those "special interests" and "lobbyists" that we hear so much about.)

Posted by: wolfi101 | March 24, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Anne, who and where is your editor? I believe "hoNes in on" would be the correct phrase, not "hoMes in on."

Posted by: kellcsmith | March 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Most people would think Senator Clinton is the stronger candidate when it comes to U.S economy. But one has to remember that the World economy has been widely intergrated for many years. The good global economy surely helped Bill Clinton during his presedency and it is his time in office and good economic results that give Senator Clinton a great advandges on this issue.

Posted by: sv | March 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

We can body slam OBAMA because he is black, because he like Rev. Wright, becasue Richardson likes his style over Hilary's tactics,and McCains cockyness.

It's simple to choose the winner here:
a) Choose Big Mc. You get a hamburger economy which is worst and just helps the very rich. No middle class will exist and only $10 per hr jobs. Your MBA will go right down the drain.

b) Choose Hilary and you get NAFTA 2. No universal health care, no soldiers coming back home. She will change on you big time.
We will be in for a rough ride.

c) Choose Obama and you will get change for the better. He is new, intelligent, and will unify this country for the better. You will get what's promised:
Better economy,jobs, healthcare,and education for our children.

I like all of the above choices but only one works for us all. Can you honestly pick one of the above that will really work "sincerely" for you and your family?

We know that the "old school" ways do not work. It is time for a change for the better. G bless America.

Posted by: ajosephs007 | March 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA KILLED THE US ECONOMY BASE. BOY I WISH HILARY DIDN't contribute to that system. I am sure she would like to do something for us now to vindicate herself.
We are too deep in the hole for vindication. Nice speech but it is a million jobs too late. We need a change.
How can we bring decent paying jobs back to the USA? Figure out a way Kill NAFTA. Hilary this might be your vindication.

Posted by: ajosephs007 | March 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is not the choice of the people, but of the press."

???????? Gee, then why have 700,000 more of "the people" voted for Obama? Because the press twisted "the people's" arms and made them vote for him?

Let's review some basic math for Clinton supporters: when a number is BIGGER, this is called MORE.

Obama: more delegates, more states, more popular vote.

Posted by: egc52556 | March 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

You call it "lashing" to a "strategy to sell herself" to "downscale voters" with the "core of her mathod".
now,i know you are downscale people.right?
Hillary makes you happy,but mabye you are much too naive.

Most people
Don't tell me "most".It mean nothing,or something wrong.most people are not clever.

call it "addressing an important and relevant issue". Of course we all can't share Anne Kornblut's incredibly savvy and knowing understanding of Sen Clinton, so I guess the hyperbole and impossible level of insight is unavoidable.
if you be hurt ,that's your problem,no others'

Posted by: corleniet | March 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON has lost. Keep on Blogging means you have hope. Hope is that thing you didn't have before this election.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON has lost. Keep on Blogging means you have hope. Hope is that thing you didn't have before this election.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Ok. Already. Leave Hill alone. So what if she changes tune to address what's going on right this very minute with one of the worst economic storms that every hit the US in recent years. We are almost like the 1930s depression.

She can't help it if she helped put NAFTA out there whiche ended up taking away 49.99% of US jobs. These jobs went to fatten up other nations economys. The French have a better economy than ours. The English is doing better, the Spanish is doing better, the Germans are doing better, the Canadians are ranked higher than we are. We are almost like a third world country because the dollar is totally devalued in Europe. The Euro is worth so much more. For all instensive purposes on global scale the US is in Bankruptcy. Our economy is totally worthless and so is the US dollar?? The problem is can the American people survive this storm that Hilary helped to create. I think we need a big CHANGE don't you all?
We lost over 1/2 of US high paying jobs. The only jobs you can get nationally right now are low paying 7-18 per hr jobs and we certainly cannot take care of a family efficiently with that dilemma.

We are pretty much an erode Economy base that is drunk with famine. We are the laughing stock at the moment vs. the rest of the world.

Thus, we are about to loose our homes,cars,education, and stocks. Do you really think she is trying to really help the American people to salvage something. Salvage what? Gas prices are sky high,no jobs,foreclosure,no education for the kids, no health care. What can we salvage Hilary after NAFTA gave our half of US jobs to the rest of the world. It's really ironic that the country that we gave jobs too have bypassed the US economy base. Thank you very much Hilary you have been quite helpful with Nafta. Our system now is just about the rich and the poor. The middle class got wiped out most recently with the foreclosure,jobless,no decent paying jobs,no healthcare and no way to get back our jobs. So what can we do folks?

We got to make a change or we will perish. The middle class is gone. Don't you agree?

Posted by: ajosephs007 | March 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

While hussein continues to sing uncle jeremiah's theme song,"God Da'mn AMerica", it is refreshing to see another politician actually addressing issues critical to the middle class. Clinton's proposal is excellent and demonstrates, once again, that she is the ONLY Dem candidate with ideas and solutions to critical problems.

Hillary solves while hussein sings!

Posted by: ImpeachNOW | March 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The headline reads "CLINTON HOMES IN ON ECONOMY". Shouldn't it read "CLINTON HONES IN ON ECONOMY"?

Unless Hillary's homes (residences) have some profound effect on the nation's economy???

Posted by: ncalpaul | March 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, back at the housing market, there is a possible light at the end of the tunnel.

"Existing-home sales, including single-family houses, townhomes and condominiums, rose 2.9 percent in February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.03 units, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) said Monday."

Now, what are those necessarily clumsy proposals for premature government intervention?

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is the stronger candidate!


Posted by: glamourchild1 | March 24, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is my choice for president. I am glad to hear what she has to say about the housing market. As far as I'm concerned she is the ONLY candidate qualified to be president and the only candidate with solutions for our sinking economy and country. It is a pity that the press is giving Barak Obama a free ride. He can do no wrong.

N. Chevre
Mother of two

Posted by: nchevre | March 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is my choice for president. I am glad to hear what she has to say about the housing market. As far as I'm concerned she is the ONLY candidate qualified to be president and the only candidate with solutions for our sinking economy and country. It is a pity that the press is giving Barak Obama a free ride. He can do no wrong.

N. Chevre
Mother of two

Posted by: nchevre | March 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is my choice for president. I am glad to hear what she has to say about the housing market. As far as I'm concerned she is the ONLY candidate qualified to be president and the only candidate with solutions for our sinking economy and country. It is a pity that the press is giving Barak Obama a free ride. He can do no wrong.

N. Chevre
Mother of two

Posted by: nchevre | March 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama divides....Clinton unites!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: sjohnson | March 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama divides....Clinton unites!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: sjohnson | March 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Well right now really doesn't matter who wins , because as i saw it the American dollar is on death row right now , not unless bush resigns now and cliton or Obama do something about it and very very quickly

Posted by: Hotgurl530 | March 24, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Sounds sort of like an issue.

That is so weird.

Cultist the Race is not over.

Posted by: mul | March 24, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is behind the Iraq war vote which cost us a trillion. Where are we going tpo get $30 billion for the home mortgage crisis? Why should it come out of my pocket as a taxpayer? The answer is in regulation not give aways for people who made bad decisions and should have to pay. People in Pennsylvania should be wary of Hillary spending their hard earned money to subsidize the wheeler dealer class. Its her New York bankers that made a mess of this with no regulation to begin with!

Posted by: paulnolan97 | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Here's the link to his letter from a year ago:

Where was Hillary then? You know, BEFORE it was a popular topic?

Leadership means you're first doesn't it? I never heard about her supporting his plan. Of course, now that it's politically expedient to roll out her less substantive proposal......

Posted by: dborgers | March 24, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to disillusion Clinton supporters, the race is won with delegates. The presidency is won by electoral vote. Population does not account for anything in both races. CA, NY, TX with large hispanic populations will vote for Obama with Richardson as his veep. White non college educated white voters will be a strength for both McCain and Clinton. Unless Wright apologizes himself without Obama's coercion this will play against Obama with those voters. Sadly race is not a problem in our country with each succeeding generation having less prejudice. The future is better race relations as young get old.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama proposed a much more substantive summit OVER A YEAR AGO.

Where was Hillary a year ago before the crap hit the fan?

Posted by: dborgers | March 24, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Obama is not the choice of the people but the choice of the press, and MSNBC and CNN the same team that brought us and sold us on:'

George Bush
Iraq War

I am not buying.

I will only vote for Hillary as I see the Obama campaign is now irreparably damaged from the association fo Rev Wright

20 years, not just a picture while he happened to be in the white house for an event, but 20 years

also, he played the race card pure and simple

i went from voting for him "if I had to" to now not voting for him at all

i won't vote for mccain, but i won't vote for obama

Don't get me started on the Obama campaign,
ex: last week when they thought somemone (Clinton) had broken into HIS records and then we found out it was all their records, did you see the hype and the paranoia around the conspiracy to bring down Barak? then it was al three and it wasn't really a story anymore but Barak had managed to turn it into "a racist situation" ENOUGH ALREADY

too much drama for me

i noticed the "experienced" candidates did not freak out or cream "outrageous" and run around like they had been winged, thats where experience really shows

I also don't like the trend of thinking that Barack can bring people into the fold

yuk - too religious for me (and oh what a religion that one is, that is what is going to lose the election for the dems)

the general election will tell us all who is voting for who

me, i may not be voting

I do apreciate the more sane postings here about Barak, but so far not one has convinced me of anything that makes me want to vote for him, but please keep trying

everyone has a right to post here and if you don't like what someone says, don't post, these personal posts are a pain in the a.. while you are trying to read comments on an article

may I suggest Craigs List rants and raves for some of you

Posted by: lndlouis | March 24, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Her plan is smart and doable. We will be lucky to have such a smart woman in the white house. For those of you who can not control your mouth ,it is not a suprize. Your candidate while talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," "deliberately misleading," "literally willing to do anything to win," and "playing politics with war."

This "full assault" on Hillary's integrity and character.
Shame on you Obama.

Posted by: nsabetus | March 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

FYI: The states won so far have Hillary with a lead in Electoral College votes with 219 to 202..The interesting thing about these numbers are where most of the Obama are coming from, states that are almost certain to go Repub in The GE. I have seen some evidence that even Ca. and NY will go to McCain if Obama is the nominee. Economy is the most important issue and will always be when it is time to vote, despite whatever is the issue that tends to change on a daily basis.

Posted by: lylepink | March 24, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

And look, who's going to be on that board? Alan Greenspan, well he should know about that crisis, he helped create it!

Posted by: old_europe | March 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Almost one year ago to the day, Barack Obama sent a letter (below) to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging them to convene a homeownership preservation summit. Today, Clinton is proposing essentially the same thing.

One key difference, however, is the diversity and representation that Obama called for - not just some of the same people who helped to create these problems or have a direct financial industry stake in the outcome: "I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge."

Here's the letter Senator Obama wrote to Bernake...

"March 22, 2007

The Honorable Ben Bernanke
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

The Honorable Henry Paulson
U.S. Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators' Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:

* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.

* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.

* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.

* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.

* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.

* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.


Barack Obama
United States Senator"

Posted by: lexi1 | March 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

not a bad speech by clinton, though Obama wrote a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson laying out almost exactly what Clinton is proposing today. Only thing is Obama wrote that letter last year.
Sorry Billary, My choice is still Obama for President. I sometimes wonder if the Clintons ever have any original ideas?

Posted by: formlessness | March 24, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

HILLARYOUS definition: When someone describes a situation in a way that benefits their selfish goals, despite all of evidence to the contrary (reality).

1. Obama leads Hillary Clinton in delegates by 121, popular vote by almost 750,000, he also leads in the number of states won. However, Senator Bayh of Indiana, who backs Clinton for president, proposed a new Hillaryous gauge by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Clinton or Obama. He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won. What a hillaryously undemocratic method to override the will of the majority of the voters in the Democratic party.

2. Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement was eagerly sought by the Clinton camp. However, since Richardson endorsed Obama, Clinton strategist Mark Penn Hillaryously told reporters that he didn't think it was a "significant endorsement."

3. James Carville Hillarously told the New York Times that Richardson, a former member of Bill Clinton's Cabinet, had committed "an act of betrayal," adding that it "came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out [Jesus] for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

4. CBS News reports: Sixty-nine percent of voters who have heard or read about Obama's speech say he did a good job addressing the issue of race relations, and 63 percent of voters following the events say they agree with Obama's views on race relations. Seventy-one percent say he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright.

5. Clinton had significantly higher debts -- she owed $8.7 million, not including the $5 million she herself lent to her campaign. Obama only had about $625,000 in debt to be paid.Clinton had some $10.9 million in cash left at the end of February. Obama had over $30 million in cash left at the end of February. Today Sen. Clinton HILLARYOUSLY laid out an economic plan for the country although she can't manage her own campaign finances.

Posted by: rickozz | March 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary/Billary, she will wear the PANTS when it comes to the economy. Right now she realises that Mortgage foreclosure of homes is the inevitable way of getting more votes and has become her agenda. Very smart politician only. but not with heart..........

Posted by: daxjen13 | March 24, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's speech was great. Hillary is the strongest, most qualified, most electable candidate in the in the race.

Obama is unelectable.

In spite of the media's 24/7 promotion of Obama he will NEVER be electable. His negatives are skyrocketing. Wright, Moss, Rezko, Crown are devastating to Obama. No amount of money will change this fact.

Obama is toxic to the Dems chances for victory in November. No VP slot either. I doubt he's even re-electable to the Senate after this campaign debacle is over.

What kind of man, what kind of father would subject his own part white children in a "church" to Jeremiah Wright, a racist, anti-white, anti-American, anti-semitic, pro-Farakhaan, black supremecy, nation of islam supporter who believes the U.S. Govt "created AIDS to kill black people?" THIS is the man Obama calls his "mentor". This is appalling.

Obama's new "pastor" Moss is just as appalling. Check out his Easter "sermon" on youtube.

This calls into serious question the character and judgment of Barack Obama. It's ugly and most certainly not Presidential.

It's OVER. The Dems need to rally behind Hillary ASAP of it's Pres. McCain. I will vote for McCain of Hillary is not the nominee.


Posted by: TAH1 | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's speech was okay. It's not the promise of actions on the economy that is the problem. It is the ability to get Congress to enact on them.

While Obama's on vacation, it is going to be up to the campaign to conduct themselves properly.

Anybody no where Hillary Clinton was on Easter morning? The media seems so focused on Obama's every movement, I don't know if Hillary or McCain were in church Easter morning.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 24, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

When all else fails, appoint a high level commission to 'explore the issues' and hope the economy fixes itself while they are ordering the catering for the meeting...

Posted by: mikey999 | March 24, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Anne forgot this part of Hillary's address on the economy, "We need a president who is ready on day one to be commander in chief of our economy."

Hillary forgot that the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that command economies do not work.

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 24, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Does the name Timothy Gieshler(Sp?) ring a Bell? How about Banking De-Regulation in 1998?

I believe the Clinton's have enough Tax-Payer Blood on their hands in the Banking Nightmare inflicted on us already!

Cripes, I am half tempted to get them in, just so she has to deal with the mess THEY created!
But, the Clintons would just foul up things even worse!

It is funny to hear her talk about it though! -


Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

So get your fat rearends back to Washington and start putting in some legislation like you are getting paid to do. I don't want to hear what any of these people are going to do when they are already in the position to start implementing solutions.

Posted by: Ethicist | March 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not the choice of the people, but of the press. "The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee -- and that has an impact every day (Wash Post 3/24)." Unfortunately, someone spilled the beans a little too soon, leaking the Wright story to the average day viewer before Obama bagged the nomination, and now voters are starting to make their own assessment. "More than half of Democrats and nearly two-thirds of Republicans would be less likely to support Sen. Barack Obama for president after viewing video clips of his longtime friend and pastor espousing a radical black power worldview." Obama's boat is sinking, so Richardson steps in and asks Clinton to drop out. Why would she when she's up double-digits in Pennsylvania and has the potential to blow Obama out of the water now that a bit of his past is finally exposed? Maybe, just maybe, the media will then start to look at other bits and pieces of Obama's past. Just today we learn that he tried to take credit for a federal bill he didn't work on. It is a ploy he used to great effect in the Illinois Senate with the help of Emil Jones who handed him the sponsorship of virtually everything that any other Democrat worked on. Fortunately, Dodd had the good judgment to push Obama back. I guess Obama wants Dodd and others (those that have graciously endorsed him) to play the same game that he and Emil Jones played in the Illinois Senate. The Republicans are going to make mince-meat of this come November. They are already harping about Obama's thin resume. When you stack Obama's experience up with McCain's and then inundate voters with images of Wright damning America, who do you think is going to win? The only chance Democrats have, counter to what the media thinks, is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: howdy999 | March 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Another media comment by a cult fan.
Anne, what flavor is your favorite KoolAid. We'll send you a box so you don't have to keep drinking that stuff you're getting now.

Posted by: v2rmlh | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Another media comment by a cult fan.
Anne, what flavor is your favorite KoolAid. We'll send you a box so you don't have to keep drinking that stuff you're getting now.

Posted by: v2rmlh | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody even have a count of how many standards Hillary have?

She has no shame in looking straight in the eye and lying.
She had no anwer but "I don't recall" when she was being questioned during white water investigation.
She said she will not turn down lobbyist money.

...and now proclaims to be the defender of common working people. She see no shame in lying during the election. If she is elected president, she will drop nuclear bomb on the us citizens and will say, "I do not recall pushing that button". Please send home that liar now.

Posted by: mha31353 | March 24, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Speaking from the other side of the political divide, I can say that Clinton is the stronger candidate. She is less vulnerable to attack than Obama and it has to do, once again, with identity politics. Attacks on Hillary can generate a huge sympathy vote on the distaff side, as was demonstrated by the "teary moment" in New Hampshire.

Obama is a more open target on this basis because his identity cohort is smaller and has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic party for a generation.

That said, the Democratic party seems to be locked into an auto-destruct mode that seems unavoidable.

Vote McCain!

Posted by: edbyronadams | March 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

ooooohhh... don't be mad Clinton supporter. it's not our fault that you decided to back a cold, calculating, heartless automaton.

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

You call it "lashing" to a "strategy to sell herself" to "downscale voters" with the "core of her mathod". Most people call it "addressing an important and relevant issue". Of course we all can't share Anne Kornblut's incredibly savvy and knowing understanding of Sen Clinton, so I guess the hyperbole and impossible level of insight is unavoidable.

Posted by: zukermand | March 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

" part of a strategy to sell herself "

Gee whiz, Anne. You think Sen Clinton is an inhuman, calculating politician. We get it. You can stop throwing these little turds of pretend mind reading into every one of your posts. It's overkill already.

Posted by: zukermand | March 24, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The economy is a huge issue. Perhaps this is one reason why Clinton's stats have been increasing the last weeks;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor

Posted by: davidmwe | March 24, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company