Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In Wyo., Criticizing Clinton's 'Standing' on War

By Peter Slevin
CASPER, Wyo. -- Sen. Barack Obama fired back on Friday at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for suggesting that he is not committed to ending the Iraq war by a fixed date.

"It was because of George Bush, with an assist with Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war...," Obama told an audience here, lumping his Democratic rival with the presumptive Republican nominee for their votes to authorize the U.S.-led invasion.

"I've been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8," he said, "and I will bring this war to an end in 2009."

"Now, what is true," Obama went on, "is that I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I want to make sure the troops are protected and safe as we are withdrawing them. And I won't want to see Iraq collapse....So we have to be careful if we're going to end this war."

Obama, sharpening his effort to distinguish his record from Clinton's, said the New York senator "doesn't have standing to question my position on this issue."

At the first of two Wyoming events during a day trip from his Chicago home, Obama also had something to say about the Clinton television advertisement that portrayed a phone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m. The ad suggested that Clinton was the candidate who could best be trusted to handle a crisis.

"That was designed to feed into your fears. I mean, what do people think I'm going to do? I'm going to answer the phone," Obama said to laughter. "I will find out what's going on. And I won't be browbeaten into launching a war that was not necessary.

"I will get all the information about what crisis is taking place," he continued, "and I will exercise the same judgment that I have shown over the last several years on critical issues, ranging from Iraq to Pakistan to all the other issues that are going to be so critical."

Obama did not publicly address the resignation Friday of Harvard professor Samantha Power, one of his leading foreign policy advisers, who referred to Clinton in a published interview as a "monster" who is "stooping to anything" to win.

By Post Editor  |  March 8, 2008; 10:55 AM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton on Bush and Boiled Frogs
Next: Mich., Fla. Dilemma Consumes Democrats

Comments

JackSmith1, I totally love and agree with you comments. If you think Obama can beat Hillary with "fill in the blank" you must be an idiot....LOL

Hillary for prez 2008

Posted by: butterfly2 | March 10, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

It was Obama's very own advisor [ now, ex-advisor ], Samantha Power who remarked that Obama considers his "campaign promises" to be "campaign plans" and, therefore, he is not obligated to stick to those "promises" that he made because they were not "promises", they wre "plans". Did he tell the voters this when he made them these "promises"?
As for the Florida Democrats, they got robbed by the Republican majority in the state who decreed the date of the primary.Therefore, they should not be held responsible and should not have to forfeit their votes. They were already forced to have their votes negated by the Unjustices of the Supreme Court in 2004. They do not deserve to lose their votes again. However, if Florida gets to have a primary, so must Michigan. Are there many voters who would be switching from one preferred voter to another? I don't think that the amount of voters who would do so would amount to very many and so the vote should be similar to what it would have been in January.I say, go for it!!. Let everyone have his say in voting!

Posted by: afed27 | March 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Not being a reader of the Chicago Tribune,I do not why they support Obama. I did subscribe to a Toledo paper but I recently ended the subscription because I was constantly writing to one of the editors questioning them on why there was never a negative article printed in the paper on Obama. His plagiarism was not reported on because "it was not important". When asked, if a writer used other's words very often without acknowledging the real author, how long would that writer be employed at the paper? The answer was that they were not similar. Of course not, one stole words to speak amd the other stole words to write.In between, I would get words from the editor like, "I like Obama", "my wife and her son like Obama".I asked why, when an incident happened in our own backyard and was not reported on, the answer was that Obama had a perfect right to push Clinton off a stage where she had been taping a speech for showing on TV channels that night, because he was ready to make a speech [ 46 minutes long ]and he wanted the cameras on him and she deserved this treatment because she had not conceded the race to him.Does this make sense to you? Not to me!
However, a couple of days later they endorsed Obama without writing about any of Obama's warts. This, to me is not journalism, it is a case of pushing one's own agenda. How can you endorse someone who takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from a nuclear facility and decides that his nuclear bill was not necessary any more? How can you endorse a person who speaks other's words while not saying they are someone's elses? He is lying by exclusion. How can you endorse one who has accused someone of causing a politician's death because she gave Bush the okay to invade Iraq, while taking the support of others who voted the same way she did without a qualm?
What of Obama's reach out to Canada and telling them that they should disregard his campaign promises because they were only "campaign plans" and did not hold him to honor them? Do the voters know this? Why should they vote for him if a campaign plan is not the same as a promise to them?
So, he lied to the voters, as well as to those who asked him if the Canadian contact was true. For one week, he made denials. Did Obama's campaign reach out to other nations, telling them that his "campaign promises" were only "plans" and he had no intention of abiding by them? Did he write to Israel, Cuba, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Hamas?Which "promises" that are now called "plans" does he intend to stiff us with? The local paper described Obama's atrocious behavior on this as his being "too confident". How about "too arrogant" or "too sneaky" or "too unworthy of Presidential ambitions"?
As far as support in state of Illinois, members of my family live in Illinois, they voted for him in the past but are now disgusted with his voting record in the state and would rather vote Republican than have him as President. I feel the same. Obama will get no vote of ours, as much as we disagree with McCain's platform.

Posted by: afed27 | March 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Give the Obama Chicago thing a rest. He got the support of the people in the state he represents, and he still has it. Nuff said.

Posted by: blessedbobi | March 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

to svreader

How ignorant you are - I too live in Chicago, and could you please explain why he is sooo overwhelmingly popular in Chicago and wins by huge margins in the elections if he is such a horrible person?? Stop trying to spread ridiculous lies about this intelligent and kind man. Obama has dedicated himself to civil rights and helping the poor. The Chicago newspapers would not be endorsing him if any of your lies were true, so give it up.

Posted by: skimom27 | March 10, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama keeps doing and saying the right things! His adviser stepped down for saying publicly what is so obvious to the majority of democratic party voters, "CLINTON IS A MONSTER".

YEP' SHE IS! BE AFRAID DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Posted by: vicbennettnet | March 10, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse


Lets hold Mr. Obama to task. There is alot we do not know about his policies and how capable or not capable he is. alot of campaign hype- but no details.
That scares me.
Bye the way- Obama did not vote against the Iraq war- like he indicates in his press release. He just did not vote. Big difference. So exactly Mr. Obama how are you going to remove all of our troops from Iraq? NOW! and everything will be wonderful. Think Mr. Obama should get security briefed on the reality of doing that. WE DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY DO WE> WHY DIDNT WE WALK AWAY FROM VIETNAM? If you want to throw stones direct them to George Bush and Colin Powel for lying. We all thought we needed to go to war. Oh yea- Execept for Obama. He is special...All Americans made a mis-take of the the facts put before them.
Mr. Obama needs to get his facts right. No Barrack Obama on the list.
UNITED STATES SENATE- Iraq Vote

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Posted by: jheckerman | March 10, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

There is a possibility we are about to elect a person with little or no experience.

Once we tried that. A person who ran for the Senate and was defeated. Finally made it as a Representative.

That's experience? He led us right into war! Would we trust him? Would we really trust Abraham Lincoln?

Gee, I would. Am I an idiot?

Posted by: wrinkle | March 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama won Texas, so Hillary has not won all the big states. Texas was threatened to be sued by the Clinton campaign if they released the results of the caucus, so Hillary could spin Texas as a big win, but Obama won more delegates.

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 10, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

THE WORLD BEFORE 911: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
H-illegal-ry and B-illegal were AKA the "Teflon Team". H-illegal-ry must truly believe that she is and always will be immune to charges of corruption, or errors in judgment. She claims she was co-POTUS with Bill. They were AKA the "Teflon Team". Okay, have her testify on what she did or did not do to capture Osama bin Laden. There are many unanswered questions in how bin Laden eluded capture during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Contrary to Clinton's claim, an order to kill bin Laden was never issued. According to estimates, there were eight to ten opportunities to get bin Laden. The top-secret documentation of the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION HANDLING OF TERRORISM THREATS prior to 9/11 TURNED UP MISSING. We will never know the full truth about how 9/11 COULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE been prevented. The 9/11 Commission report was flawed, insufficient data, made it a waste of time and money. The documentation was compiled from investigations made by the NSC and no back-up copies were made, as they were stored under extremely strict security guidelines in the National Archive. Sandy Berger had been Bill's National Security Advisor, and Bill appointed Berger to represent him in the 9/11 investigation. Berger was given access to the Archives, security was lax, Berger was seen with paper sticking out of his socks, but not apprehended at that time. Later, when charged, he claimed he was borrowing copies to study later, no lie detector test given. End of story: the DOJ let him off on a misdemeanor charge and he surrendered his license to practice law. Whatever was in those stolen documents, it had to pretty damning evidence that would tempt anyone to take such huge risks; prison, career loss, and more. When the media was alerted, Clinton played it down, saying that a big deal was being made over it because of the coming elections. Yep, the Teflon Team is an entirely accurate name for the Clintons. Let's play hardball. How about some answers?

Posted by: Cali-Gram | March 10, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

For all those who accept Senator Clinton's statement that all Senator Obama would bring to the White House is a speech in 2002, I suggest you actually read the speech as it spelled out exactly where our country sadly finds itself today.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

We can only hope that Senator Obama has the opportunity to exercise similar great judgement on the challenges we as a country will continue to face whether at 3:00pm or 3:00am in the White House in 2009.

Posted by: csfoster2000 | March 9, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Time magazine had a great article last week on "Experience", different articles covered presidential experience as well as the science of experience vs expert. I recommend all read these articles, especially those people voting based on "experience. BTW Obama has more experience than Lincoln. The most experienced president ... Buchanon, who is considered one of the worst presidents.

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

LOL!

O'Bombma Insania! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 9, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has based a good part of her campaign on the notion of her experience. But have you seen this ad showing her authorizing the Iraq War? It's pretty powerful stuff:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs

Posted by: masonbill12 | March 9, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break, Obama is blowing hot air again...Don't believe me, go to the Senate page at .gov, look at the voting records of all Senators that voted on the issue of setting a time line and date to withdraw. We all know that Clinton voted no, but keep looking OBAMA ALSO VOTED NO. Obama has consistantly said ""I've been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8," he said, "and I will bring this war to an end in 2009."..his voting record sure doesn't say that does it now......He is playing this country like a fiddle and most of the people listening to him are dancing the jig with him.

Posted by: Frankie58 | March 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Imagine...

Barack Hussein, WISHES
Saddam Hussein,

Still owned Iraq!

Who'd have thunk that? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Isn't his statement that he made a speech in 02 against the war getting a little old?I believe people in the most remote part of the world have heard this over and over.We know now,get over it.Give us a speech that you stop funding it.

Posted by: roncraw | March 9, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton cannot substantiate her claim to "35 years of experience." Clinton has held one elected office, that of senator, for a term and a half.

As first lady of Arkansas, Clinton remained a full-partner in an intellectual property and patent law firm. Clinton's job was business development. Having worked for such a law firm, I can attest to the fact that nothing an IP law firm does is a public service. IP law firms focus on landing big corporate clients in the pharmaceutical, technology, and engineering industries. They aren't interested in the hoola-hoop inventors.

Clinton's role in the public sector was almost exclusively as a board member.

Having worked in the public sector, including public transportation, a presidential commission, and non-profits, I can tell you board members are completely removed for day to day operations.

Board members usually meet for a few hours once a quarter. When they do meet, they focus on the financial aspects of the organization. They also give the CEO direction as to which of the organization's goals they want him/her to focus on. Goals they don't care about go by the wayside--no matter how beneficial they may be to those served by the organization.

Board members are not on the street doing any meaningful work. Board members barely comprehend the work the staff is doing--indeed, they never show any interest in the work that the staff is doing. They approve the budget; give the CEO authorization to enter into contracts--and usually order the CEO to give their friends contracts.

Having served as a liaison to boards, I know Clinton's board work is really meaningless work.

Posted by: txgall | March 9, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Hilllary touts her 35 years of experience vs whatever Barack's experiences are. I however can't think of anything in all of her so-called years of experiences that benefitted me or anyone that I know. So will someone please describe to me just what her experiences are. Sitting in on meetings with world leaders and having no say in the decision making process doesn't count as experience to me.

Again, just what are these so called experiences? She represents gutter, back room smoke filled politics and frankly I'm sick of it and her. The last thing America needs is a Clinton dynasty; should have had a belly full with the Bush dynasty.

As Bill was heard to utter, "Give Me A Break".

Posted by: gprice720 | March 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith -

Are campaigning for hillary's husband?

Posted by: AmiBlue | March 9, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Jack Smith

I may be and idiot, but I fail to se how Hillary can deliver on all these promisees she has made during the campaign as she is going to have to continue with her slasha nd burn campaign in the general election thereby pissing off big time all the Republicans and a good number of Democrats in Congress. What good is the "best" health care policy if you will never get through Congress. HIlary is unlikely to have much is the way of coattails. All we are going to get with Hillary is 4 more years of confrontration and debating what "is" means. Hillary thinks she is so cute with her nastiness, but she will reap what she sows and the country will be the worse for it.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

If you give Hillary credit for her husbands accomplishment and think that 8 years as first lady qualifies someone to be president.

You might be an idiot!

If you believe the "35 years of experience" nonsense and think that having tea with the women of N. Ireland garners foreign policy experience.

You might be an idiot!

If you ignore many of the failed policies in the Clinton adminatration while trying to give Hillary undeserved praise.

You might be an idiot!

Posted by: bobobo | March 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

The woman has NEVER made a good political decision!
Everyone knows her defeat at Health Care. She was going to push it through by demonizing her opponents.
She assumed control over choosing the Attorney General for Bill.Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were forced to withdraw their names. Janet Reno, Hillary's final choice was called by Bill the worst AG I could have had. Hillary's former law partners, Web Hubbel, Vince Foster and William Kennedy for Justice, WH Staff and Treasury respectively were indicted, committed suicide and forced to resign.The woman cannot even run a national campaign effectively. Clinto is one incompetent person America cannot afford.

Posted by: sperrico | March 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Billary's desperation is showing. 08AMA!

Posted by: rrrkeyo | March 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

dream ticket McCain hillary What a pair they deserve each other

Posted by: capskip | March 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton made the political decision to vote for the war. As an ordinary citizen, I was shocked. I honestly could not believe that any democrat with a conscience would vote for the war. Clinton chose to do so because she was afraid of appearing "soft" and I believe many thought it was political suicide to vote against the war at that time. She has no credibility with me.

I am also tired of hearing her speak of her experience while she was first lady. Does anyone remember the foreign policy blunders? If you take credit for the things that went right, please at least acknowledge what went wrong. Rwanda anyone?
Further, whenever a legitimate point is brought up regarding her lack of visibility into her finances, her actual experience in the White House, the response is not a response but an ad hominem attack on Barack Obama. wow. She is killing the party in her attempt to smear Obama. Karl Rove? Ken Starr? Please don't remmind me of that period. It was miserable to watch.

Finally, her willingness to do and say anything to win sickens me. How short sighted of her. To compare herself to John McCain is ludicrous and embarassing. I'm sure McCain is salivating at the prospect of taking her on when it comes to experience. Obama should do everything to contrast himself to Clinton and McCain.
Obama has the judgment and the strength to do what is right for this country. Hillary Clinton is just more of the same. No thanks.

Posted by: klhood11 | March 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama should start explaining his relationship to these nasty people before its too late. Hint, apparently, he was only against the Iraq war because he wanted Auchi's money.

Nadhmi Auchi and Antonin "Tony" Rezko


http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=289698788263978

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

The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If this were ture, then why don't we have answers for:

FOREIGN CLIENTS: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?

MONEY: Do the Clinton Foundation's, Clinton Library's, Clinton campaign and Clinton's income tax records show a proper accounting for the funds received for charitable, public and political purposes versus the Clinton's private income?

PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich the partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?

As a Republican leaning independent, my support of a Democratic candidate for president will "stop dead in its tracks" if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket.

Posted by: jonura_smith | March 9, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Poor Samantha. Fired by Obama for speaking the truthy -that Obama has no plans of following up on his promises about Iraq.

Just like his NAFTA promises.

Beware of Obama. He is a habitual liar.

Posted by: fjstratford | March 9, 2008 5:21 AM | Report abuse

Barack Insane O'Bombing, Your Twit,

The "War" in Iraq was over before most Iraqi's knew it began!

It was one of the most unprecedented Victories in History! :-)

Next to almost no Collateral Casualties, and very few Allied Loses!

Then came Peace! With Peace came the Morons and the Opportunists!

The Opportunists BANKED on the Morons! :-(

One of the Morons was Meaghan O'Sullivan, another was Donald Rumsfield, and the Biggest was their Boss, Bushie!

THEY collectively allowed a Shia Cleric to take over, and make a Secular Country, a Shia Theocracy! :-(

Can you say "Iran"?

BUT, we are there, Iran wants to take over, and we cannot allow that NOW!

As RAT scratches his head trying to figure out just HOW Dumb Bushie CAN Be, he has to wonder how much WORSE it can possibly get!

Then, Obasama comes around, and poor RAT thinks about Suicide to put himself out of his misery! :-(

Please God, or the GOP, FORCE McCain to accept Mitt Romney as his VP! :-)

I deserve a Break!

Posted by: rat-the | March 9, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

Obama has nothing.

His Iraq speech - he wont do what he promised, according to Samantha Powers who was fired after exposing the truth.

NAFTA - he tells one thing to you, another to the Canadians.

His Healthcare policy - leaves 15 Million out, because he played it safe. And he is lying if he says he is not.

His speeches - recycled speeches from DeVal Patrick.

His economic policy - copied from Clinton

"Yes we can" - stolen from Dolores Huerta (after they dragged her in the mud in NV)

Stop the Drama, Stop Obama!

Posted by: fjstratford | March 9, 2008 4:56 AM | Report abuse

i WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT A SITUATION-- HILLARY WINS NOMINATION, NOVEMBER ELECTION AND BECOMES PRESIDENT FOR TWO TERMS. nEXT TIME HER DAUGHTER FIGHTS THE ELECTION AND CLAIMS SHE IS THE MOST EXPERIENCED CANDIDATE BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN THERE FOR 4 TERMS.
sHOULDN'T THAT BE ENOUGH FOR THOSE TO VOTE FOR HER?

Posted by: BASAB.DASGUPTA | March 9, 2008 1:46 AM | 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 9, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

the republicans are running the Democratic nomination.


they are selling the framing omamais using....


_they_ told him the past doesn't matter...

just like they told Bill Clinton, not to investigate George H.W.

since he'd just been elected president he was willing to let the old geezer slide....

he won't make that mistake again, but omama will, he's not been there before....he will trust them until he learns that he can't....

by then they will produce pictures of him having sex with small animals and accepting money from Kim Il Jung for fissionable materials....

and since omama sayz that they wouldn't do things like that he'll be their meat....

and he'll bark like a dog and stupidly pick up the soap....

Posted by: a_bigone | March 9, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's war.

Posted by: nerdoff | March 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Just to let everyone know, Obama smokes cigarettes still, with two small children of his own! What kind of example does he set for us, our children and the world? And just to let everyone know, it's called politics for a reason...it's "ugly" Obama needs to stop crying and blaming everyone else and start actually doing something, although I did enjoy his last "sermon" whooops, I mean, speech. Obama's "ALL TALK AND NO ACTION!" PEOPLE OF MISSISSIPPI AND PENNSYLVANIA VOTE HILLARY CLINTON AS PRESIDENT FOR 2008!

Posted by: familyautos | March 9, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I have nothing against Obama as a person, and no prejudice to hire Hillary for


manager / president of the United States as a person....

but as a hiring_manager, if I want quick turnaround of an existing problem, I hire someone that understands the existing problem(s),

not someone that schmoozes the sxxx out of me during the interview process....


I don't schmooze well, I usually think hand wavers are people that have a lot of paper to back them but no real experience...and in the real world, personal experience trumps academics....


I don't care about your suit, your demeanor or your friends, the only thing I care about is you.


When I look at Obama I see a mean Jimmy Carter, with no grasp to back up his meaness.....stomping around like an angry woman will not have the same effect as a personal relationship with "the situation," by having been there before


I think that Hillary has been involved in the Presidence at the intimate decision making level before. I see Bill Clinton as a person that used her as an advisor and pointman on several situations that could have developed into world level crisis

She and Bill Clinton know first hand about the vast right wing conning spiracy...that is trying to pull the wool over the populance's eyes as it takes it's contracts and funding and trys to tell the world and "the people," we aren't here anymore.


Really? All of those bush appointees and non compete contracts and BLACKWATER are going to be gone when a new President takes up residence in the oval office stained by the sweat of a $200 an hour male prostitute visiting the current President,


that the repulsive scammers have made sure that you never heard about....as they beat the drum of homophobia to herd you.


The people who run Washington D.C. are by and large good people, their bosses are not. I have nothing against the workers of Halliburton, Bechtel, DynCorp, KBR and others


but the reason that they exist is to feed off of the AMERICAN taxpayers while returning the people nothing on their investment. Seperate bush and his friends and family from the Washington D.C. feed trough. Shut down AEI the ISRAELI backed thinktank that makes visible policy for this administration and imprison those who work there that have commited TREASON against the United States by pressing ISRAELS needs as if they were U.S. of A. needs. They are not.

Who would I want for president? Who would I hire? Hillary, you may not like her, but she can do the job. I don't see anything in Obama but someone that can use "how people see him," something that he has used before. Will it work in Washington?


Sure as long as he doesn't need to actually change anything


O'mama doesn't have the knowledge to do the job.

period...in fact he says he doesn't have to understand what happened


that's in "the past,"


like the foundation of a building is in the past, because it's what everything is built on


bro.


pull your head out of your rear end bro.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 9, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary needs to speak her mind,


she's been around long enough to trust herself...

she should quit pulling punches.

she was right about the vast right wing conning piracy...

Karl Roverer is a pparently descended from Nazis and is into gay sex...


SEARCH ON KARL ROVE, gay, TBR, Jeff Gannon
.
well,


it looks like there's some repulsive scammers selling the Hillary is the same thing we are story tonight...


or maybe it's just some baby Obama players that forget that Bill Clinton had to endure 8 years of lies and innuendo,


followed by 8 years of "Clinton did it too," under Bush...

can you doubt that the Clintons are the most feared people in Washington by influence peddlars who are looking to continue to peddle that influence and war profiteer ???


.study some history.

find out the connection between the current state of affairs and collusion of the wealthy with certain families.

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY

you owe it to the country.


.

.and Pee Wee Herman, he plans on learning the job once you give it to him...

the DA is still calling an occupation a war.


if he wanted to win "the war," and he wasn't so stupid, he'd call it an occupation.

as a lawyer, Hillary had to cast her vote aye or naye based upon the presented evidence...


INTELLIGENCE said that there were WMD,


JOHN W. Dean Nixons former cousel aka LAWYER said that


George W. Bush misled CONGRESS with false information, that he had promised to produce WMD


once they were in_country.....he didn't ergo he should have been impeached...

but since there was a REPULSIVE SCAMMER MAJORITY veto_proof inthe HOUSE AND SENATE...no one called for an impeachment and the Democrats couldn't do it by themselves..


hell George W. signed EVERYTHING PLACED INFRONTOFHIM FOR SIX [ 6 ] YEARS !!!!!

and you want to know why we're in a recession ?????


ask O'mama if he knows so much why he uses the Repulsive SCAMMERS FRAMING to talk about policy and "the war," when the entire world knows that IRAQ is a colony of bushCO and CRONYs and AFGHANISTAN is their private HEROIN FACTORY....

O'mama doesn't know that ?

apparently not.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 8, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Everyone is a comedian.

svreader has written:

"Obama not only took cocain, but also took bribes. Obama not only plagiarized, but also lied. Obama not only played Karl-Rove dirty tricks, but also had his senior adviser speak dirty words."

Have you been paying attention at all, sv? Dick Cheney is padding his ever-larger bank account with continuing payments from Halliburton, while as VP he can influence the awarding of contracts. This has been widely reported. Yet, you think that some dubious land deal in Chicago will amount to a popcorn f-rt in a presidential election? And if you must resort to the plagiarism charge, you are truly desperate. That one was laughed out of consideration long ago. Hillary won't even repeat it any more. And a politician who lies? Heavens! What is the world coming to? Sheesh, dirty words? Hey, maybe we can prove Obama has sneaked a peek at the Playboy centerfold. He'd be lucky to hang onto his Senate seat, much less win the White House, don't you think?

"We will NOT have such kind of low-class opportunist be the President. Never Ever!"

Now you have us all rolling on the floor. It's only happened about 40 or so times already in this nation's history.

Funny!

Posted by: johnuw93 | March 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse


Obama hasn't dealt with a "critical" issue in his babied life!!

Here is the best infromation on Obama and Rezko. Straight from the Chicago TV news. It's very thorough. Eleven buildings in Obamas district, Rezko received 100 million in taxpayer dollars and grants to fix the buidlings and did NOTHING. Obama turned his head? Obama said he didn't know. Well, HE SHOULD HAVE. They were in his district and LARGE and falling down! He turned his head for his friends. But Rezko helped Obama get his 1.6 million dollar house and the land next to it.
This will all come out in the middle of a general election. We lose!

Obama is a DO NOTHING. Nothing in Illinois. Nothing on the Oversight Commitee for FOURTEEN MONTHS!!! That is OVER A YEAR!!
He says, he was "too' busy" with his campaign. That would be "too busy" with his own life.

He's a lazy butt.

That simple.

See these videos. You NEED to know about this man. Then share the information.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-close-were-barack-obama-and-tony.html


God bless America. And the world.


Posted by: Thinker | March 8, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama and others are finally questioning her recent assertions about Hillary's recent assertions that her tenure as first lady provided relevant foreign policy and crisis management experience to be president. See this video and photos that undermine her recent grossly misleading claims about her role in Bosnia and Ireland. http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/the-truth-hurts/

Posted by: roadkillrefugee | March 8, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters will forgive him for anything: hard drugs, screwing the poor who made the mistake of trusting him, doing a lousy job, it doesn't matter to them.

To the rest of us it means a great deal.

I'm a loyal Democrat, but I'm a American before that.

If Obama's the candidate, I'll gladly cast my vote for McCain.

We've had enough OJT with Bush.

We don't need, and cannot stand, any more.

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama is so over.

Obama not only took cocain, but also took bribes. Obama not only plagiarized, but also lied. Obama not only played Karl-Rove dirty tricks, but also had his senior adviser speak dirty words.

We will NOT have such kind of low-class opportunist be the President. Never Ever!

Posted by: hgogo | March 8, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

If Obama was a poor state rep, well, that hardly amounts to much of a scandal. You seem to be out of touch with today's standards. Our current Pres and VP have more DWI arrests between them than all the Democratic candidates together had divorces. What difference does that make? Zero.

A reliable representative of the corporate interests has nothing to worry about. Anyone who is not reliable in that way, no chance.

Posted by: johnuw93 | March 8, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Take a REAL HARD LOOK at Hillary's so-called relevant 35 years of experience. I just hope Obama et al have the nerve to start pointing this out to the electorate.

1 year at the Children's Defense Fund (terrific but millions of Americans have worked for nonprofits for at least 1 year, that hardly qualifies you for President).

3 years on Capitol Hill (fantastic, but again, thousands of capable young Americans have worked on Capitol Hill, they're not all going to be President).

15 years as a corporate attorney for a tiny law firm in Arkansas (again, admirable but not even "top shelf" in the legal world given the thousands of first-tier attorneys at major corporations across America).

8 years as first lady (America thanks her for her service but the one thing she was responsible for not only failed badly but it was terribly mismanaged by her).

7 years as a Senator (she's passed, what 2 small pieces of legislation? Again, hardly the basis for a national campaign). Senator Clinton's claims of being "the most experienced" and of trying to paint her opponent as a rookie are somewhere between laughable and offensive. The more she makes these claims, the more offensive they are because they insult people's intelligence. In essence, she's pulled one over on a whole lot of people.

Her team has so duped the national media, it's frightening. There hasn't been ONE national TV analysis show that has done even a 10 minute analysis of her record. Yet she whines because "everyone's so tough on me and they never analyze my opponent's record." If they were tough on you, they'd be questioning her claim as to why she should be President. She should be grateful that Senator Obama has stayed above the fray and hasn't shredded her claim. - yet. But I bet it is coming soon. I can already see McCain and the Republican 529s going nuts on her so-called experience.

Posted by: swanieaz | March 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

wakeupamerica says svreader has brains. That would be worth a debate. I don't think bigots can think. svreader, could you please get a friend of yours who is not white and just get that person to say you are his or her friend? Please?


Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I was referring to your loaded question about the voters of the Buckeye State.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | March 8, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I would not say that about anyone. I love living in our form of a democracy, and I always trust the voters. HRC threw the "kitchen sink" in Ohio, the media gets confused, and unfortunately, there wasn't enough time and discourse for the people of Ohio to sort through HRC's baseless claims.

Now, I believe HRC's strategy of mudslinging will become clearer to the voters. I believe once Barack heads to Philly to eat a cheesesteak and a hoagie, and holds a HUGE rally in Love Park, things will work out.

You can call me crazy, but I have faith in the system and Barack.

Let's go change this world and "make it as it should be."

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | March 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

This is my favorite:

"Good questions, svreader.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 05:03 PM"

You two need to take your medicine, the doctor was right.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I would not give you 2cents for a Wyoming cowboy today. When they come to Texas they have come in pairs.

Posted by: wakeupamerica | March 8, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Be nice to "svreader" the person has brains.

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

Congratulations Senator Obama and Thank You Wyoming!

Earlier news: today is International Women's Day. Wouldn't you think Senator Clinton would want to put out a statement recognizing it on her website first, BEFORE Senator Obama?

To give further proof of the painfully amateurish level of professionalism and lack of focus in her campaign, she couldn't manage even to do that. Someone's head should roll for this oversight.

Senator Obama's statement went up on his website at 2:50 p.m. EST; Senator Clinton's went up on her website at 5:11 p.m. See a comparison below.

Barack Obama"s Statement on International Women's Day
By Sarah Ramey
Mar 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm EST
CHICAGO, IL - Senator Barack Obama released the following statement today on International Women's Day:

This International Women's Day is a chance to reflect on the status of women in our societies, honor the extraordinary women whose courage and determination have shaped our lives, and rededicate ourselves to the ongoing challenges facing girls and women everywhere �

Hillary"s Statement on International Women"s Day
by Lindsay Levin
3/8/2008 5:11:05 PM
International Women's Day is an opportunity for all Americans to celebrate the accomplishments and progress of women around the world. Women continue to make gains on many continents and in many areas of life ...

Posted by: willowbarcelona | March 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

john ---

One coke addict in the Oval office has been more than enough.

Obama is toast anyhow, once people find out how badly he screwed the people in Chicago who voted for him to be their State Senator.

The TV report from Chicago is devastating, and gives a glimpse of the kind of guy Obama really is, and shows that he betrayed the people who elected him.

Much more will soon follow.

Word is, Rezko is ready to sing like a bird.

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey johnuw93,

If Bush Jr. and Sr, Reagan, Quale can be in the White House, anyone can.

Posted by: fatflush3 | March 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"You're right. We'd rather vote for the war hero than the coke addict."

This assertion is quite funny in light of the 2004 election. Even if the charges against Obama had a shred of truth, W has lowered the bar so far that they are irrelevant.

Posted by: johnuw93 | March 8, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Hippies go home.

Posted by: jaywpat | March 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, crook, hypocrite, lier, thief, murderer, bigot and a Republican running as a Demoncrat. She would never be in her present position had she not married Bill Clinton. She will do and say anything to be President. With Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove helping her she is dividing the Demoncrats and the country. She lies and will keep the war going. She wants Obama to be her VP so she can win the popular vote and kill him.

Posted by: fatflush3 | March 8, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

IS IT 'MISS ANN' OR MS. CLINTON -
In 2008, pretentious outrage and passive-aggressive campaigning works. Unfortunately, for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is an experienced practitioner and perpetrator. Fair competition is threatening for a self-entitled Senator Clinton.

Many Blacks subconsciously recognize this characteristic as the 'Miss Ann' syndrome. I could retire wealthy with a dollar from every Black woman confiding their frustration about some White women using these tactics in the workplace. The civil rights and feminist movement never fully erased the 'Miss Ann' mindset. Most Black women I know swear the feminist movement was historically the White women's movement, and is alive and well in the new millennium with Ms. Clinton.

So, how does America's first relatively untainted, very capable and broadly likeable presidential candidate in 20 years, who happens to be a Black man, overcome? Well, the word among us 'Brothas' on and off the street is simply this: Don't play a game using your opponent's strategy.

When Mrs. Clinton pretentiously hypes outrage over false issues, Senator Obama should ask her to explain the preference for negative campaigning. When she denies the behavior, he should ask how will her tactics genuinely bring Americans together.

Surely, Senator Clinton will attempt to sidestep, distract or dismiss the validity of the questions. She may even complain in her best 'Miss Ann' plaintive voice about feeling attacked. Mr. Obama should end the topic with an emphasis on why voters prefer constructive competition rather than negative campaigning.

Hypocritical, schizophrenic, and passive-aggressive behaviors frustrate and scare me when picking a president. When they all come from someone that may lead our nation during war and peace, guessing is not an option. After fact-checking their websites, choosing between an erratic versus a stable candidate is easy.

Senator Hillary Clinton makes me nervous about "day one." Senator Barack Obama makes me hopeful about "change."

Dennis Moore, Chairperson,
dennis@DCIndependents.org
District of Columbia Independents for Citizen Control Party (DCICC)
http://www.DCIndependents.org

Posted by: DennisDCICC | March 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

More smoke and mirrors:

Wyoming caucus results are in. With 80% of the vote in Obama has 2000+ to Clinton's 1500+ votes to allocate 18 delegates.

And this some how wipes away the Ohio vote and Texas vote were well over millions voted and Clinton won.

I'd much rather have Wyoming in the Democratic Column than Ohio, wouldn't you? And I wonder how many Wyoming voters didn't go to the Democratic caucus but will vote in November.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- were the good folks of Ohio NOT smart?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

That's fair, GoHuskies2004. But if the choice does come down to McCain or Clintonm you'd better start thinking which one got the F +

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

stopthewar69:
I definitely agree. I'm glad you watched the video. Barack needs to go to Love Park in Philly and remind the voters that Bill Clinton believes in voting for the candidate telling you to HOPE.

JakeD: Unfortunately, I will not make such a pledge. HEre is what I will tell you: 1) I support Barack unequivocally, because he is the best person for the job; 2) Hillary is not going to win this election, because the good folks of Pennsylvania are smart and they will see what a great man Barack is; 3) I vote based on how a candidate runs a campaign, and to this point both Sens. McCain and Clinton have flunked any sort of objective test.

Go Barack.

Wyoming, Baby!

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | March 8, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

As one says he'll surrender faster, the other says she would have surrendered first (if she had not read the intel report now, like she didn't read the intel report then).

Had enough? Try listening to this police officer's politcally charged homemade music CD called 'Blaming America First.' They always do. Hear it at:

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Truscott1 | March 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama says that Clinton does not have "standing" to criticize his position on Iraq.

Well now that's peculiar given the fact that Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the 2002 vote and did not enter the Senate until over 2 years later.

The truth is that Obama does not have standing to criticize the vote of a voting member of the Senate; someone who had information before her that he did not; someone who was trying to rein in a President from a war when that President would not be deterred.

It is a bit Orwellian to suggest that one who had a vote and voted lacks standing when compared to one who did not have a vote and who didn't vote.

Since he has been in the Senate and could vote, Obama has mirrored Clinton's votes. Now if he wants to say that Clinton is keeping the bus in the ditch, well, he's helping her do it.

And now that Obama has a US Senate seat and a committee chair in foreign affairs, he hasn't used it to hold hearings.

And he has his chief foreign policy advisor out there saying that his campaign positions on the war and withdrawal are all "subject to change" if he gets to office and hears differently from the Joint Chiefs and other military advisors.

Now there's leadership for the future, and honesty too. Why doesn't he say that he does not have a position on withdrawal until he gets elected and can think about it??

More sleight of hand politics, but now he has gone Orwellian, sort of like,

George W. Bush.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

The comment that Obama continues to make "I want to change this country". this country had better decide if Obama is the one they want to change the country in his views. So for his view of this country is not good "at all". His wife statements are disturbing as his own. His church associations to Wright and the truth about Rezko. Their are too many unanswered questions concerning Obama and his wife. I don't want to look up one day and see that the real monster is Obama. Everyone really needs to question what is going on. The change that you are voting for in Obama may be only rose colored glasses. If Obama and Michelle change this country to their views. What will we have when it is all over???

Posted by: wakeupamerica | March 8, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Martinedwinandersen:

If most of the supere delegates vote for her, that's "stealing it" in your opinion? Why should Florida Democrats be disenfranchised by a REPUBLICAN-controlled Legislature that voted to move up the primary? Maybe you should just stick with the ad hominems like calling her a "monster"?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

You might be an idiot if you support someone who rides on the coattails of her husband and allows the same man to cheat on her countless times.

POWER is what matters to her and I'm really sick of feeling LECTURED every time her mouth opens.

Less experience? Who cares. At least Obama doesn't bring a legacy of corruption.


Posted by: a6mech | March 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama in a "red state," but respect anybody who supports Clinton. I'd like to see Obama work as a uniter right now, perhaps suggesting a fair compromise for the FL and MI situation. I think he has to be true to his sense of "new politics" even as he addresses the attacks from both of the other campaigns.

Well, I suppose he should of course. On the other hand, by all accounts, Obama hasn't exactly built up a reputation to his colleagues in either the Illinois or US Senate as a bi-partisan, unity building legislator -- they tend to use descriptors more like ambitious to the point of ruthlessness and extremely image conscious.

So I'd be shocked beyond words if a bid for unity started in a game for President that he appears to have largely in hand, if not over electibility, at least in the strictly technical sense of the rules needed to win.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1205017214-SoPM8zdg62Lp7R/kbGToLA

Posted by: elayman | March 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Argument ---

Lets have slums for everyone!!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton argument:

"Let us steal it fair and square."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Not really.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD --

HUSSEIN is such a wonderful name for drugged out slumloard, isn't it?

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Wyoming with its few Democratic and at least some more Republican votes doesn't matter--the endgame--Nov. 08--will be very different.
See for this,
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/obamas-real-pro.html

Posted by: bn1123 | March 8, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I still think if Obama wins the nomination, McCain's best bet for VP is Bloomberg.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Story --

Republicans couldn't ask for a better result.

You still haven't viewed the clip, have you?

I thought so... I'll post it here to give you another chance.

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton as VP?

Wow.

I don't hate Bill, but I do think he should be staying on the golf course and letting someone else have a turn at the white house.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

You're right; I was thinking THREE electoral votes.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

P.S. CNN is indeed projecting Barack HUSSEIN Obama wins Wyoming (is that winner-take-all THREE delegates?).

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Is Wyoming winnter take all? AP is saying he won 12 delegates.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

VPs too (although the awful rumor is that Hillary would pick BILL Clinton as VP, even though he's disqualified to be "elected" President ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Republicans --

Congratulations, if Obama gets the nomination, there's no way Republicans can lose.

You're right. We'd rather vote for the war hero than the coke addict.

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

svreader...come back in Nov. and then see how far your thoughts have gotten you...peace out!

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

Ok, sorry, I misread your post.

No, McCain wouldnt be a fool for doing that. But I don't think he will.

Could he pick Arnoöd? I thought it was only Presidents who had to be born in the US. Is it VPs too?

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I don't respect or admire the lady, but I know she would be better than Whacky Mac...I am honest enough to admit it...she is not.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Ok, it is done. Obama won Wyoming. 91 percent reporting and he is up 17 percent. So, she can't win this one.

W Obama!

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Ok, it is done. Obama won Wyoming. 91 percent reporting and he is up 17 percent. So, she can't win this one.

W Obama!

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Too bad McCain can't pick Arnold Schwarzenegger as VP ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

brian --

You are so wrong its not funny.
Obama will never be President.
Not after everyone sees who he really is.

You are in for a rude awakening!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The audacity of male posters who constantly refer to Monica on these posts to tear down HILLARY.

OBAMA's problem which is OUR problem

www.taylormarsh.com

Posted by: mjno | March 8, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

You mean MCCAIN would be a fool for picking a California senator for a running mate? How about the Mike Bloomberg scenario, then? He could win NY, and he has plenty of cash too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

You're are sooo lame...he will be AHEAD at the end and that is enough to convince the superdels to follow the people...he will be ahead by at least 150 delegates and that is enough to convince most critically thinking supers...he also matches up better against Mac and leads in the popular vote...switch the script and be objective you mindless follower...if it was Hillary in his position I would be very discourage and prepared to vote for her in the general...no matter how much it hurt.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

brian --

Obama did a crappy job for the people who elected him in Chicago.

He got rich, they got slums.

Taxpayers got shafted for $100M

Do you really think Republicans are going to give Obama a "free ride" about that?

Obama is hesding for a huge fall.

Why don't you try viewing the clip...

Nobody who sees it could ever support Obamaa if they care at all about other human beings.

Barak Obama only cares about Barak Obama.

You guys are being taken for chumps!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD---

Most Democrats have become disgusted with Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she would gain Clinton many votes. Clinton would be a fool for picking a California senator for a running mate anyhow.

Anyhow, it is all hypothetical. I just don't see Clinton getting the nomination.

I really wish I knew you in real life and not on the internet, as I could use some extra cash :)

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

svreader... you've posted that link over and over...no traction...what about Peter Paul and the tape recorded lies by Hillary that are about to hit the news...you can hear her commit a felony right on You Tube...she may even go to jail. I still haven't heard an answer from any Hillary supporter on this? Why?

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I agree...I would even vote for Hillary over McCain...they are both hot heads, but I don't think she is a War Hawk like him...he's just plain scary to even consider...enough dead...let's work through true diplomacy...and stand strong against crazy religious fanatics and terrorists...this can and will be done in 2009...Obama 08. Yes we can!

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

storyofthefifthpeach:

I live in California too -- what if McCain picks someone like Dianne Feinstein or Mike Bloomberg as his running mate -- if I were a betting man, I'd take your bet for as much as you could afford ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Story, brian --

Have you even looked at the Chicago TV news story?

My bet is that you haven't.

You don't even know who and what the candidate you're supporting really is...

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

SVreader:

I am beginning to think that you really do have some kind of serious problem. No kidding. Maybe you should call someone you know and talk things over and ask for some advice.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, lilofoxlet, but I already posted a link above of Obama supporters who will NOT vote for Hillary.

P.S. to brian: according to the math (assuming Hillary stays in) there's no way Obama wins the nomination outright either.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD---

I don't have the slightest doubt Obama is going to win California and NY in the general. I have spent half my life in California and lived in NY as well. Both are his in the general election.

Yes, some Hillary folks won't support him. But most will.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that Obama will be our next president.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD and svreader...this whole Obama winning the nomination fairly just hurts you doesn't it...she didn't get the nomination...get over it and move on...I know its hard for old dogs...but you can do it.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

We definitely didn't wait 8 years of lies to get McCain in to continue years of that crap....period. If Hillary loses, please think first before you flop the country back into condemnation as well as our fellow Americans whom have gone overseas. Obama wont let that happen. All agreed? Agreed. If Obama loses, Hillary's next runner. Either way, please think twice before voting for more damage. =) Stay open, and hope for progress.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD --

You're more correct than you can imagine!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"Now one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealling to your fears and the other one's appealling to your hope; you better vote for the candidate who wants you to think and hope"

Bill Clinton

Perhaps Obama should begin using this in his speeches. Would Senator Clinton accuse him of plagiarism then?

Good tip GoHuskies.

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | March 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Just wait until the real POW / war hero takes him on then ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

No, Obama will be TOAST because everyone will know that Obama's a FRAUD!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

No...Obama will be stronger because Hillary is playin the role of McCain and not very well.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

And, of course,

3. How badly Obaam screwed the people he represented when he was State Senator for Chicago.

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

GoHuskies2004:

If Clinton manages to steal the nomination away from Obama, will you pledge not to vote for her on November 4th?

storyofthefifthpeach:

You didn't see the latest LA Times / Bloomberg poll that showed McCain beating Obama? Also, could Obama win California or New York if most of the Hillary voters refuse to vote for him? What if McCain picks a prominent running mate from California or New York? What if there's another 9/11 (or worse)?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters that talk about how much ahead he is in the polls neglect two very important facts.

1. Most people don't know much about Obama, including the fact that he he was a repeated abuser of "hard drugs" most notably Cocaine, and

2. Just how badly Obama supporters have burned their bridges with mainstream Democrats

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Ah...can you feel the sunshine and cool breezes of the wyoming plain...feels great...on to ol' miss.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

lilofoxlet:

Thanks -- I always try to make "interesting points" but I'd appreciate at least simple "yes" or "no" answers to my questions -- last time I will ask:

1) You ever heard of Reagan Democrats? [get ready for plenty more MCCAIN Democrats and Independents];

2) Were they all "immature" too? [as you labled any Democrat who dares vote for McCain];

3) In some polls, McCain beats Obama (the one I recall was the LA Times / Bloomberg poll last week), so what? [the only "poll" that counts is the one on November 4th]; and

4) [Most importantly] After Hillary spends another FIVE MONTHS beating him up, don't you think it will be just a bit easier for McCain to win?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Robert Creamer says:
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:
1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.

4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.
5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.
6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?
All of these factors are born out in the consistent survey results that show Obama polls six to ten points better than Clinton against John McCain.
Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I used to think Hillary was a good Democrat, but the way she's run this campaign is despicable. Here is the worst of her ads, followed by a nice rebuttal from her own husband. I actually remember the rally where Bill Clinton stated these words. It's in Love Park, Philadelphia. Hopefully, Senator Obama stops off there on his way to victory in PA on April 22.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzu_DsVJVPI&feature=related

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | March 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Listening to Mac talk about the economy...what a joke...my 6yr old could explain it better...this is going to be fun...too bad he's a war hero...becasue he's gonna get clobbered.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Keep reachin'...our guys got her...just admit it...a slight victory in PA will not save her from the fact that she has lost the nomination to a rookie that has more appeal to Americans than her...despite her 6 years of Washington experience...and yes I did say slight victory...he will pull within five points by election day...take note and read again on April 22. One narrow win will not save her now. A huge victory wouldn't either. Ouch.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"brian=frank"?

Also, it is true that she and McCain have the most FEDERAL experience -- Barack HUSSEIN Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate more than a year before he started running for President -- what changed from when he told the voters in Illinois that he would serve out his entire term?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"This whole thing is just another fairy tale."

Obama WAS NOT PRESENT during the vote to "Authorize" the Iraq War! He did not have a chance to vote yes or no so we don't know how would have ultimately voted. He also did not get to read the intelligence report which would later be rendered false or mostly false.

Hillary gave AUTHORIZATION to go to war IF AND ONLY IF Saddam and Iraq did not comply with U.N. sanctions. Bush and co. did not allow the U.N. Inspection team to finish their work because they planned this war with Cheney 6 months prior to 9/11.

Bush did not make use of ALL DIPLOMATIC channels before resorting to war as a last resort. This vote by Hillary demonstrates that she will protect our nation and is not afraid of taking military action, but, would not do so without exhausting all options.

Obama has only been in the U.S. senate for two years, he is inexperienced and does not have a legitimate record which one can examine. Hillary could have ran for the presidency four years ago when Kerry ran, but, rightly waited for her chance after serving her first full term in the senate.

Posted by: cheersdk | March 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

PS - I alos think the race should go on, but on the issues, let the voters decide and call it a day.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Hello...Hillary is the one who betrayed her party...saying she and McCain have the experience and Obama just has a speech. She just lost the party support with that comment...traitor...she can go join in with Leiberman. Hey maybe McCain with put her on his ticket...now that would be unstoppable!

Critical thinking...try it.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

svreader - my comments are for anyone who spews a message of slander over substance even the obamamaniacs. It just seems that you are on every board here at WaPo with the same message and it is often very negative. As an independent, I am a dem supporter across the board this year.

But watching these boards and others, there is more turmoil INSIDE the camp than out of it. And for anyone paying any real attention to this is noticing how the negativity gets worse as the days go by.

The democrats are giving away the election, IMHO either obama or HRC will win in Nov, with the dem support....but with attitudes sinking to....I will never vote for (fill in the blank) if my candidate loses is rediculous.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

At this rate the only thing Obama supporters will unite the country to to is vote for John McCain.

Obama knows what his supporters are doing and couuld stop it by a single mailing asking his supporters to not trash the Clintons.

Obama says one thing and does another, just like he has for his whole life.

Obama's supporters tactics are making everyone who isn't a member of their "cult" HATE them.

I've seen some of the Republican attack ads against Obama.

I can't until they start airing them.

Obama's supporters should have done reference checks before they hired him!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Jake, very interesting points. *S* However, I must also say that it appears to me that for Hillary's experience, then she would also know what's good for the team which she claims she fights for. Isn't helping the case at all. Furthermore, Obama's responses for her isn't helping her much either. I'm sure McCain is sitting back taking notes.

I've looked up on all of the Republicans, as well as all Democrats. I cannot believe Edwards dropped out. But, next out of all of them Obama's the one. I think Hillary should stop giving McCain notes

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama will come out of this stronger than before...and Hillary and Bill will be gone.

Welcome to the future.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

With friends like you, Hillary Clinton needs no enemies. Tearing down Obama, making all kinds of scurrilous charges against the Democratic Party's current leading candidate, is no recommendation for Hillary Clinton. Melodramatic phrases about "throwing Hillary under the bus" are no more helpful. If Democrats choose to nominate another person, Hillary will still not be seeing the greasy side of a bus. She will have lost some elections and a nomination. Boo hoo. She is not entitled to anything, least of all the White House. If she can't win it, tough.

In any event, your posts demonstrate the desperation of the Clinton supporters. Going all-out Rove on the opposition is the only case you have left. She does not inspire. She has no serious experience. Her judgment is poor on the most important issues. Her allegiance to the corporate elite is too obvious to ignore. We have no more reason to trust her election day conversions on such issues as Iraq and NAFTA as we did her husband's. So all that is left is this scorched-earth, name-calling negativity that you are offering up.

Now, down here in Texas, it does not much matter who wins the Democratic nomination. McCain has W's endorsement, and the state is reliably GOP in any event. So I am free to vote for someone who represents me, rather than either of the two offerings from the corporate parties. Go Ralph Nader!

Still, as a lifelong Democrat, I can see a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Clinton, and the coin flip favors Obama.

Posted by: johnuw93 | March 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

and brian=frank..he's dead now...he was just too honest.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Good questions, svreader.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Some have argued that Obama could unite the nation. As his campaign generated more and more enthusiasm for the great good Americans may be able to do together, I began to wonder if he had already succeeded in uniting us. But I have now begun to wonder if the greatest thing he could do to unite this nation is to end Senator Clinton's bid for the Presidency.

Senator Clinton has run an incredibly divisive and corrupt campaign. The effort to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, after having agreed that they would not be seated, should be taken for what it is: an effort to steal the election. Like Gore in 2000, Obama would be significantly harmed by saying anything about this, so he wisely hasn't. But this doesn't change Senator Clinton's unwillingness to play by the rules she had agreed to. This is highly corrupt and it is harming the image of the party just at a time when events wold suggest that the Democrats should be sweeping to victory.

But she has done more than this to harm the party. By running a brutal campaign late in the season, she harms both her own and Obama's chance of getting elected in the general. Certainly this will have a greater impact than the much maligned Nader campaign. Further, she has argued that both she and McCain are more qualified than Obama in a national security crisis.

If Obama gets the nomination and loses, will we hold her responsible for loss of 1%, 2%, 5% of his vote. Senator Clinton has clearly shown she is not fit to be te standard bearer of the party.

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | March 8, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

j_thinks --

Why don't you tell Obama supporters to shut up first???

I had proposed a Clinton/Obama ticket, and was pushing for it inside the party.

Obama supporters wouldn't hear of it, and spend all their time attacking both Bill and Hillary Clinton, who are two of the finest human beings ever elected to office in this country.

Instead of defending Bill Clinton's administration, the Obama-nuts have dragged every right-wing screed and low blow out of the clostet and posted them everywhere.

They aren't Democarats. They're members of the "Cult of Obama".

Why should Democrats support them???

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Not after Hillary gets through damaging Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

You must love war...McCain is your man...he goes from the premise that there WILL be WARS in the Middle East and he's just itchin to start another one...sorry I'm for the premise of peace...war is a last resort.

That's fine...I'll have fun watchin' him go down to Obama as well.
He's a War Hawk and an idiot on the economy...easy pickins'.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't think any of us are helped by the vitriol we are stooping to.
We're invested in our candidates, but, again, this is the kind of politics, the kind of governing, we are trying to rise above. Tolerance is important precisely when you disagree with someone.

G.W. Bush has governed with a lack of accountability and transparency, and a management style that discouraged opposing viewpoints. Governing involves far more than policy positions. For me, I'm taking a close look at the way the candidates campaign to see how they will govern.

I voted for Obama in a "red state," but respect anybody who supports Clinton. I'd like to see Obama work as a uniter right now, perhaps suggesting a fair compromise for the FL and MI situation. I think he has to be true to his sense of "new politics" even as he addresses the attacks from both of the other campaigns.

The Bush II administration has argued that governing the country by any means necessary is legal and defensible. If anything goes on a silly WaPost messageboard, how can we criticize him? Just thinking.

eric wilhelm

Posted by: minorthread | March 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Do Obama's supporters care so little about the poor????

Or are Obama's supporters just afraid to look at the clip and find out what kind of "MONSTER" their "Tin God" actually is???

The only person Barak Obama cares about is Barak Obama.

Watch the clip. Or are you afraid of what you'll find out???

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

svreader - do you produce you tube videos, everytime I turn around you have some silly link for videos on these boards. I think you are better suited for mtv, I actually think you are a paid surrogate of the republican party.

Both HRC and Obama are qualified for the job. You all need to get off your high horses, as I am sure most of you would not stand up to ANY scrutiny to even run for president. But you sure have enough guts to type in insults all day......they both are good candidates period. Get over your teenage years of not making the basketball team. There are plenty of great games on today - go watch them.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

lilofoxlet:

You ever heard of Reagan Democrats? Were they all "immature" too? In some polls, McCain beats Obama (the one I recall was the LA Times / Bloomberg poll last week), so what? After Hillary spends another FIVE MONTHS beating him up, don't you think it will be just a bit easier for McCain to win?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah and Obama will not have Hillary on the ticket...keep dreamin' on that as well...her and Bill are now begging to be on the ticket...losers...you already said too many hateful things you hot heads.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

brian:

Who said anything about a "re-vote"? Oh, that's right, you are the guy who doesn't understand how a brokered convention could nominate someone other than Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I actually think a "re-vote" (second bite at the apple) is unfair to all the other States and will end up REWARDING the bad behavior by Florida and Michigan. Besides, I doubt that anyone is willing to pay for the cost to "re-vote".

BTW: I'm not "disappointed" since I am going to be voting for McCain ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

We can't wait until some of the people Obama "did", talk.

Obama supporters are in for a Rude Suprise!!

My God are you guys naive!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov , but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.

3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.

7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.

10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.

13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.

15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton 's bills are, more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I've included all the states in my calculations and he wins...hands down in any scenario, except if she wins EVERY state by over 60%...did that happen...no...and if you don't believe me there are a bunch of super math nerds that have come to the same conclusion!

Keep talkin'...it won't change the facts.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

More on Obama:

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,

125 on poverty and public assistance,

112 crime fighting bills,

97 economic bills,

60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,

21 ethics reform bills,

15 gun control,

6 veterans affairs and many others.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Another look at Obama:

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama will never win once people find out how badly he screwed over the people he represented in Chicago.

Multiple exposee's are already in process and Rezko will sing like a canary to save his own skin.

Watch the clip. There are many more where that came from.

Obama's lousy record in Chicago is a matter of public record.

As is his "hard drug" filled past.

If Democrats nominate Obaam, they will lose, and mainstream Democrats will never forgive Obmaa supporters for throwing Her and Bill Clinton under the bus.

You could have had a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Now, you'll get nothing.

Remember the people who served with Kerry.

Republicans have people who did drugs with Obama.

Swift-boat is going to look like a picnic.

Consider yourselves warned.

I used to be a Republican and know a lot of stuff you don't

There is no way in God's green earth Obama will be able to be elected.

Obama did a lousy job in Chicago.

Too many people know too much.

So go ahead, screw-up Hillary's chances.

All you're doing is playing in the the Reublicans hands.

If Obama's the candidate, Democrtats can kiss the election goodbye!!!

That's a promise you can take to the bank.

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Fl. & Mich that's all you have is your soviet style results...one person on the ballot in Mich...remember? Even if you have a redo...Hillary would win florida by about 50-40 and Obama would win Mich by about 50-40. The result...same as now. They should just split the delegates evenly and let them sit but punished at the Convention. Save everyone $35 million...give to the poor...beat the Republicans with it...don't waste it.

Keep runnin' the numbers...the result is the same...Obama wins. Sorry to disappoint.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Monica Lewinsky have more experience than Mrs Hillary, I bet she did pass more time in the oval office than Mrs Hillary.

Posted by: alberto_burgos22 | March 8, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Also, I think Puerto Rico has 63 delegates.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's government experience = 6 years in the Senate.

You can't count the time she was First Lady...no security clearance...no briefings with the President...that's why she will not release her WH schedule...nothing significant...she won't even release information on her health care efforts? Why?

If she had something to tout she would have it released.

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

brian:

Not these numbers -- Florida (210), Michigan (157) -- Clinton could easily make up any difference with super delegates. Next?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Keep rinnin' the numbers...same result...Obama wins!

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

lilofoxlet:

You ever heard of Reagan Democrats? Were they all "immature" too? In some polls, McCain beats Obama (the one I recall was the LA Times / Bloomberg poll last week), so what? After Hillary spends another FIVE MONTHS beating him up, don't you think it will be just a bit easier for McCain to win?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:23 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."
he said

I say :

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT
if you think you have a better life than your parents had at your age
if you think the way the world turns since the early 90's
if you think Hillary's election would change anything in your life, would solve any problem this country have

Posted by: nicknateize | March 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

What's the point of voting then if supporters of both Obama and Hillary say they'll vote for McCain if the opposite candidate of their preference is chosen? We may as well stop the processes and just hand the nomination to McCain all agreed? This group of people may be a large group of idiots. McCain is in a complete different field of ideas compared to Obama and Hillary both and folks you were attracted to these candidates for reasons that aren't all so different, however FAR from McCain's. It is very immature thought process to to get upset if your preferred candidate doesn't make it in the end and just completely flip the nomination when the next best candidate in line will fight to carry on the attractive principles in the first case. I personally happen to be right in Obama's corner. I've never seen a more sincere, honest, straight forward candidate. I honestly believe that this whole nation KNOWS IT, but some choose to remain stubborn. Some are stubborn for racial issues, party issues, age issues etc....Obama stands for the common sense that should be exercised in that there White House, honesty, integrity. I'm not saying you're an idiot if you don't vote Obama, but if you might be if you don't believe in those characteritics. If you do, we shall stand together as a unified nation regardless of our status sets, and let the officials know on all sides that this is what we as a people (as a whole) stand for. Technically NOBODY has had presidential experience UNTIL THEY GOT THE PRESIDENTIAL JOB. If I may say so, I was instantly voting for Hillary until I found out about this Obama...read up on him, his background, education, issues he'll focus on and where he stands and honestly I had to abandon Hillary. Obama's bringing the real noise I want to hear and then some. Nobody gets ignored with Obama. I just want to say, don't vote against him, angered, condemning this country to policies (mainly speaking of the war in fear for my military husband being misused with ill wisdom) that we have endured from Bush. Obama is the one candidate whom not only focuses on the same issues that Hillary is, but he acknowledges we need to lessen the divide in this country and he's the singlemost candidate whom recognizes it; if you don't think that's important, you need glasses and look around at things that occurs within our society. Open your minds to progress and program your brains to leave the destructive mentality behind.

I favored Hillary but I must say that I will NOT hand McCain the nomination IF Obama loses. I'm confident that he won't. Obama's the best candidate and people nationwide know it. I commend people for supporting him even if it's outside their boundaries, for acknowledging truth and integrity where they see it and acting honestly on it without bias.

I am displeased at the fact that Obama has to take time out to defend himself from Hillary. For all of her experience she speaks of, she has to rely on attacking Obama to get ahead rather than selling her experience and doing that alone to get ahead. Shouldn't her experience speak volumes instead of her attacks? A strong woman of credentials would have enough backbone to not have to do that. She also shouldn't have to cheat. She shouldn't have to frighten people to persuade them to vote for her rather than fairly allowing them to gain confidence on their own.

Hillary talks about all of her experience, and foreign experience. She says Obama's all talk, no action about getting things done. People, don't just listen, research the truth. Hillary has only passed a whole bunch of calendar days (18 out of 20 things)to be recognized save 1 or 2 serious things about giving assistance to 9/11 victims which was a plus. But what weight did those carry for the country? Wow.....

Obama has so called less experience but he was busy passing some Acts with his shorter amount of time and experience, not calendar days. He got things concerning Transparency Act and 2007 Government Ethics Act passed and more and I'll send you some information. Furthermore, he is educated and has shown wisdom with less experience than Hillary (she should stop using that line because it makes her look worse that someone with less experience has displayed more wisdom concerning the war that she didn't with all her experience and he's pushed Acts through that became law compared to her calendar days). Obama is already favored in Japan and Africa for him to be considered to have less experience compared to Hillary, and he has great ideas and there's no doubt he'll do well with other foreign countries. Obama leads McCain already, whereas Hillary matches right with McCain people. To me, it's common sense to see that if Obama possesses IT, and we all know he does (that's why I had to jump ship because in good conscience, I knew I honestly could not deny Obama my vote), sure vote for Hillary but IF she loses, we all need to gather around Obama. Republicans, if you know that Obama has the capacity to bring good to this country compared to McCain, I urge you to practice good common sense and vote for the candidate to bring good to this country and not condemn any of our American members including our soldiers I don't care what contract they agreed to sign. They count on us to not let them be misused with ill wisdom. I am truly convinced that Obama is not running for presidency just to become presidency. Obama is seriously and sincerely on the agenda to fix some things in Washington. I'm wondering why it took so long to get that 1 candidate to stand forth and do what Obama is attempting to do right now.

Obama's the man, working from the ground up with those who needed help and he refused the big buck jobs committed to helping people. That is sincere. Hillary was on the board of Walmart.

Obama's the one to fix as much as he can in Washington, and he knows more about the ill s that goes on, more than any of us know, and he's calling all people together to unify and demand some changes be made around here. Obama '08

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

You guys are classic...Obama is ahead he just won WYO...he's gonna win MS and he's gonna do well in PA. Keep dreamin'...and nobody voted for Al Gore...so give up on that idea...oh no anything but the real winner! Is it just that he beat your girl without stooping to her level?

Posted by: brian | March 8, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama nuts have no idea just how big a JERK the real Obama is. I pity you!!!

I bet you still haven't watch the clip from his local TV news station, have you???

Watch the clip about how Obama screwed over the poor who voted for him in Chicago.

That's just a hint of the real Obama!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Here are some more tidbits re: Wyoming (only 3 total delegates) and Puerto Rico (55 delegates) today, from a great website: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Yes, Virginia, there are Democrats in Wyoming. Just not very many. Obama has won all the Western caucuses so far (in Nevada and Texas he lost the popular vote but in Nevada he got the most delegates and probably in Texas, too, although the caucus results are still not in). There have been no polls in Wyoming, but Obama is likely to win this one too.

The following quote came from a reader in Wyoming -- which after all, is one of the reddest states in the country.

The University of Wyoming campus at Laramie is buzzing about the candidates. Bill was here in a 1,200 seat house (left many people waiting in the cold, not happy campers) yesterday. Barack gets the big basketball arena tonight. Way more interest on campus than there was for the Republicans. Barack in particular seems really well organized.

Puerto Rico is switching from a caucus to a primary on June 1. Given Hillary Clinton's popularity with Latinos and the large number of Puerto Ricans who have family in New York and like her she is the heavy favorite there.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Hussein Obama is like Hitler-he lies and appeals to the stupid masses. Vote Hillary and if not than vote McCain!

Posted by: tlarsen6 | March 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Lets do it then.

Its a damm shame the Obama nuts might make us miss out on Hillary, she's a great lady and a great public servant.

She honest, compassionate and one of the smartest people I ever had the pleasure of meeting.

But if Obama's supporters are so blinded by blind hatred, so be it.

I'd far rather have Al Gore than McCain and Obama doesn't stand a chance in hell!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win

Obama, as many recognize, now seems to be in a box of his own making.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and places the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will be immediately associated be in the voter's mind, and accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected--be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when attacked, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink", abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence, of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments", thus disempowering her already factually shaky appeals to foreign policy superiority--with a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack--rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain--and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

jcal267:

Do you blame LAURA Bush for her husband reading "My Pet Goat" too?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse


Since Mr. Obama (Senator from Chicago) went to the US Senate, thousands of our brave men and women have already paid their ultimate price in Iraq.

Senator Obama has not expressed support for the filibuster of ending this Iraq war.

If Senator Obama wants to be "MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON" when it comes to ending this Iraq war, he has done nothing. Nothing different than other 50 senators.

This voter wants to know his FILIBUSTER record related to Iraq war in the US senate.

Senator from Chicago is just another plain empty suit who went to Washington and did nothing to end this Iraq War.

That is his Iraq war record you can Xerox!


Posted by: kat7 | March 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Sennator Clinton had her chance to answer the phone during her and Bill's administration. We had to watch our embassy in Kenya be hit by torrorist, the Navy Ship SS Kohl attached int he port of Yemen, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, our dead soldiers being dragged through the streets of Somalia, and a drastic reduction in force of our military. This all happened under the co-presidency of the Clintons. Where was Hillary? We did not even try to exact revenge on those who caused us great harm.

J. Johns

Posted by: jcaj267 | March 8, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Funny you should bring that up, svreader. Eleanor Clift at Newsweek has a column entitled "What if There is No Back Room?" She says suppose the super degelates split the same way as the regular delegates and neither candidate is more than a few votes ahead in Denver. It is also possible that all (or most) will abstain from voting on the first ballot to see which way the wind is blowing. If it is very close, they could have the feeling that picking either Clinton or Obama will so antagonize half the party that McCain will win in a romp. So on the second ballot, they all go for a compromise candidate: (you guessed it) Al Gore.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Lets draft Edwareds or lets draft Al Gore!!!

I'd gladly vote for either one of them!!!

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

ndolan622:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is only in the lead if the Credential Committee declines to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan for Hillary DIANE Clinton. That's the "logic".

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

"Hello? Yes this is President Hillary."

*****

"Who is this?"

*****

"OMG! Another CRISIS! BILL???!! Oh, well. [sigh] What's an experienced person to do?"

*click*

Posted by: vincewms | March 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I like "it's all down Hill from here" in one of the first comments.

Obama has class. It might be nice to have a president with class again, like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy.

Billary has none.

Samantha Power -- brilliant, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the recent book on genocide -- will be back. What she said about Hillary was "impolitic" but accurate.

A lifelong Democrat, I may not vote if Hillary is the nominee.

She has no grace or honor, just a sense of entitlement which, to her, permits dishonesty and attacking the Democratic Party, e.g. saying she'd prefer McCain to Obama as commander in chief!

There's nothing "strong" or wise about that. And McCain will trounce her.

Posted by: steveforester | March 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

After seeing what Obama supporters have been willing to do to Hillary I'll gladly vote for McCain.

Its too bad Edwards dropped out of the Race.

I'd gladly vote for him.

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

First of all, for those who haven't been following up on it...it is OBAMA who won Texas - NOT Clinton...

Secondly, I am amazed more and more by the Clinton supporters who are calling for Obama (the one in a CLEAR LEAD) to step down...where their logic is coming from is escaping me...since when is it the WINNER who should step down? Makes no sense at all...however, it only goes to show that Clinton IS indeed able to brainwash the uneducated and ignorant.

Posted by: ndolan622 | March 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Since there seems to be lots of "if X happens, I'll vote McCain", let me throw my 2 cents in. I'm a registered independent. NOT going to vote for HRC under any circumstances because:

1) Claiming her husband's accomplishments as her own without doing the same for his failures.
2) Lack of a plan B after losing Super Tuesday--this is the exact kind of thinking that lead to quagmire in Iraq!!

Finally, let's remember that Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq was NOT politically expedient or well received. Don't believe me? During the same period, Times correspondent Chris Hedges was booed off-stage for a similar speech to Rockville College in Illinois. Hardly a bastion of conservative thought.

Posted by: gmc177 | March 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

ndolan622:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is only in the lead if the Credential Committee declines to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan for Hillary DIANE Clinton.

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Larry David:

"I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones."

Thanks for nothing Dogsbestfriend for sharing this very sexist quote from Larry David. Wow Obama supporters are so freakin' mature.

Posted by: kathy_dave | March 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Monster mashing?

Please see the article by Katha Pollitt on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt).

Also, the original Washington Post story by mega-reporter Howard Kurtz on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599 .htm).

The Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons can be seen at. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

You can also get a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to"--about
the Clinton White House--by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens.

See his chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065) that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 8, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Make that 601 (I forgot to count svreader ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

You say you want more war with a hothead with his finger on the nuclear (not nookyouler) trigger?

Choose McCain.

You say you want deception and mood changes and someone whose husband demonstrably hasn't been (and can't be) faithful to his wife?

Choose Hillary.

You say you want hope, brilliance, someone who wants to change (and has EXPERIENCE at CHANGING) infighting and uncompromising deadlocks?

Choose Obama.

If you like what we have now, McCain-Bush or Clinton-Bush both have the EXPERIENCE and inclination to give it to you.
I think the country is ready for a breath of fresh air ... ready for a change for the better. Just sorry if that doesn't include you.

Posted by: vincewms | March 8, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

If you can explain how any of your questions are relevant to THIS election, I'd be happy to answer them.

For eveyone else:

There are at least 600 Obama supporters who will not vote for Hillary:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?obama725

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters. If you don't like Hillary, fine. Lets elect Edwards, he's a good man and he cares about the poor and the less fortunate.

Worst case, lets all vote for McCain.

There is no way in the world we should elect Obama. The real Obama is a bigger MONSTER than Hillary ever was.

The only person Barak Obama cares about is Barak Obama and its been that way since he was a kid.

If you don't realize that Republicans have their hands on people who have known him that long you're bigger idiots than anyone gives you credit for.

Watch the clip about how Obama screwed over the poor who voted for him in Chicago.

That's just a hint of the real Obama!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

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

TAH1, where are you getting your info? Obama is in the lead...since when do winners abdicate in favor of the loser?

Posted by: ndolan622 | March 8, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

i was opposed to iraq too.

all criticism and zero action from obama.obama did nothing to oppose the iraq war in his two years in the senate.now he is continously pandering to obtain votes and try to cover up his inexperience,and people are dumb to buy it.

he did nothing of substance in the senate,because he did not want to muddy his glitzy media suite.

bush won in north carolina and wyoming and so will mccain in november

Posted by: sd71 | March 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 ---

The clip is about Obama screwing over the people who elected him, especially the poor.

Everybody in Chicago knows it.

The rest of the world will soon.

PLEASE. Watch the Clip.

Obama isn't the guy you think he is. I know. You don't. I know people who have worked with him and they think he's a world class ego-maniac, totally two-faced and a real JERK!!!

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related


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

Regarding YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT!

If you think Hillary's running around to 80 countries to have tea and crumpets with the wives of heads of state qualifies as significant foreign policy experience... you might be an idiot.

If you think that Hillary is qualified to run the country when she can't even run her personal affairs (i.e. marriage)... you might be an idiot.

If you think Hillary's stance on the Iraq war is significantly better than McCain's "100 years"... you might be an idiot.

If you think that Hillary can win the White House by employing the same formula for capturing the same (blue) states as Al Gore and John Kerry... you might be an idiot.

If you're a registered Democrat who is still thinking of voting for the MONSTER... well, you just might be an idiot.

Posted by: Jumpy66 | March 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

sv reader Obama made a serious mistake, he said it, we know it. He will never do that again, that is for sure. When people admit they have done wrong, they learn.

The Clintons, on the other hand, have made and continue to make these same mistakes, but they deny all of them, they cover them up and even have agreed to remain married for a political purpose. Lets keep talking about personal integrity.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: msadvice | March 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, they all came out to play.
JakeD, do you really think Clinton can get elected on Dick Cheney's back?

You are saying we need to keep the Bush team in the White House. Do you understand that?

Like, what if an asteroid is about to hit Mother Earth? Would you rather have Barak Obama in an undisclosed location or Bruce Willis? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Hillary spent 8 years at the right hand on president Clinton and Monica at the left hand. PLEASE just tell me one thing that Hillary did???????????? Where are her records? Oh, I forgot, she can't open them because they will show all the illegal stuff she did. Other than the lies in her website, WHAT HAS SHE DONE FOR THIS "so called" experience??????? Somebody please show all of us, ONE THING SHE HAS ACCOMPLISHED positive!

Posted by: newdes | March 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Hawkeyes wrote: I think what Bill Clinton will be remembered for is: eliminating a deficit and creating a record surplus, bringing unemployment from over 7% to under 4%, a tripling of the Dow-Jones average during his term, eight years in office without a day of recession, getting the Brady handgun registration bill passed, eight straight years of the crime rate going down... In short improvements in the things that affect people's lives.
------------------------------------
So it seems that what you're saying here is that Bill should be the nominee and not Hillary.

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

P.S. to premail:

The Credentials Committee, not Dean and Pelosi, will determine whether Florida and/or Michigan will get their delegates seated -- why do you think it's fair that the Florida State Legislature (controlled by the GOP) should be allowed to disenfranchise Democratic voters -- if Obama had won those States, would you still be making your same argument?

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

shahzadsst (and all Obama supporters who think he will win California "no matter what"):

What if most of the Hillary California voters refuse to vote for him? What if McCain picks a running mate from California? What if there's another 9/11 (or worse) in California?

Posted by: JakeD | March 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 --

Not compared to what Obama did to the poor in Chicago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Obama is the real MONSTER!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

OK, we get it. Obama was not in the Senate when the Iraq vote came up in 2002. Hey, I knew that already. I also know that his speech repeatedly said he is not against war in general, just dumb wars. As Robert Kagan argued in these pages months ago, Obama is as likely to be a Wilsonian crusader as W has been. (However, calling for the US to stand up for its values around the world is a far cry from sending in the Marines to do the job, uninvited and unwanted.) Nonetheless, Clinton made a stupid and/or ill-informed vote to give Bush all the justification he needed to take the nation to war. I realize that Clinton qualified her vote in favor even more than Kerry did. But anyone who did not know that Bush was going to invade one way or the other was simply naive, stupid, or is now dissembling. Is that really the person you want picking up the phone in the Situation Room at 3am?

The sad fact is that, despite the vast majority of the American people wanting US troops out of Iraq, all the real anti-war candidates are gone. Paul on the Republican side, Edwards (sort of), Gravel, and Kucinich on the Democratic side - all out or invisible. How did this happen? How did we go from a debate over when and how to withdraw from Iraq, to which candidate will be the most likely to use military force at the drop of a hat?

Obama is the only one of the three remaining with any basis at all to claim an anti-war stance. McCain promises permanent occupation and more wars. Clinton has no credibility, except as a panderer and flip-flopper. Given the lesser-evil options remaining, only one choice is possible. Whether he was actually in the Senate in 2002 is rather beside the point. It does not change the fundamental realities a bit one way or the other.

Posted by: johnuw93 | March 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

svreader, apart from being a spammer, do you really think dredging Obama's life for the corrupt mistake he made will make people ignore the Clintons' inability to stop lying and stealing?

From Hillary's brief but stunningly profitable foray into cattle futures, to Bill's recent trip to Khazakstan with an utterly corrupt Canadian mine magnate (where do you suppose the uranium from that deal will end up - helping the poor in Chicago?) and everything in between.


For corruption, the Clintons are #1.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

To JackSmith1:

You might be an idiot!

If you keep posting the trite "You might be an idiot.." over and over again. Come on, give us a break and try to come up with something original!

best regards

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

How can Obama supporters support a man who did what he did to people who voted for him, especially the poor!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The telephone rings at 3 a.m.

But the Clintons are having one of their famous rows downstairs--with china being thrown, Bill and Hillary calling each other "monster", and worse--and no one picks up.

Why do we want to return the Arkansas version of the Jerry Springer Show back to the White House.

Time to move on ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Israel is bombing Libano ?!

trace-sc, a typo is one thing, being an ignorant bigot is all you. It suits you. You wear it well.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

There is a small difference: Hillary knows where the phones are and who to call. Obama doesn't even know who and where are the bad guys. Two flights to Cancun and a trip to Kenya to a Halloween party won't do!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you really think dredging Obama's life for mistakes he made will make people ignore the Clintons?

From Hillary's brief but stunningly profitable foray into cattle futures, to Bill's recent trip to Khazakstan with an utterly corrupt Canadian mine magnate (where do yoyu suppose the uranium from that deal will end up - helping the poor in Chicago?) and everything in between.

For corruption, the Clintons are #1, far and away, then Obama, then McCain and then Bush (though his friends sure did make up for his inability to steal).

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama did NOT vote against the Iraq war. He wasn't even elected yet. Obama did vote on the Iran resolution, and guess what, it wasn't a 'NO' vote but a 'PRESENT' one. What does that mean? Present? On many controversial issues he votes "PRESENT." Had he been in the Senate back in 2002, one wonders if he would not have voted "PRESENT" on the Iraq resolution.

Posted by: howdy999 | March 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

To those Clinton supporters, let me ask you: How much foreign policy experience did her husband have prior to being Pres? How much domestic policy experience did he have? How much experience did he have in negotiating international agreements? Simply checking off a box and claiming some sort of experience, no matter how hollow, does not qualify you to lead. The germane question will always be about character and judgment. In those two areas Barack has displayed repeatedly throughout this campaign that he has better judgment than Sen. Clinton and that he has superior character.

Posted by: raincntry | March 8, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree with many above-if Obama gets the nomination-I'm voting for McCain-the country would do much better with him than Obama!

Posted by: aljrnyc | March 8, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

A third possible scenario:

3 a.m. two days after Inauguration night and the red phone rings. The President answers and Chancellor Merkel says: sorry to disturb you Barack, but I've just learned that Israel is bombing Libano again.
Who is this?, asks Michelle. It's Angela 'babe', the President responds. Tell that 'girl' that we moved and in this house we won't be needing her services anymore.

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

WOW! THE HILLARY MONSTERS ARE ON THE BLOGS TODAY!

(why aren't they fighting in Iraq?)

(for that matter, why isn't Chelsea?)

Posted by: kevinlarmee | March 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

smart, articulate, and nuanced while inspiring, what the heck are dems waiting for? Vote Obama.

... or vote for division and another losing year. (48% of nation already dislikes Clinton and the general election hasn't even started yet. She is the only person that unify the republican base. this isn't rocket science folks)

Yes We Can,

Obama 08

Posted by: johnjonesmt | March 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters remain blissfully ignorant of the world class screwing he gave the people who supported him in Chicago.

Once the truth about it hits the national mainsteam media, nobody will vote for Obama for dogcatcher, let alone President!

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I dare anyone who still supports Obama to watch this clip and then claim with a straight face that he's worth supporthing for any public office!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Ok have it your way. When someone asks me if Mrs. Clinton is trying to appeal to bigots, I'd say "No, no, why would I -- there's nothing to base that on -- as far as I know." With the emphasis on the I.

As in, "I have no knowledge of the Clintons' obvious attempts at pandering to America's bigots. This would be horrible if it were happening, even though, as far as I know, it isn't. After all, the whole point of this effort is to remove bigots (Cheney et al) from the White House."

It has always struck me as pretty scary how people who designate themselves as thoughful or sv pander to the bigots on these boards.

This recession could become a depression if US policy does not get the rest of the world behind our economic engine (and the dollar). There will be no more bubbles to make the next President look like an economic wizard.

Point is, having the Clintons back where they think they belong would not be near as awful as having Bush/McCain. But if they get there this way, they will wish they hadn't. They will own the economic disaster with no bubbles to save them.

Frankly, neither candidate is talking in detail about how to make this recession short and less nasty. It is all a bunch of horsepucky about "national security", as if that were seriously at issue, but mostly now they are just dredging the mud for the mistakes they both have made.

They should both be ashamed. If Obama descends to the Clintons' strategy, then he has nothing on her. The whole point of his candidacy was not to do what they and the Republicans have always done. If he goes there, with them, then he might as well disappear. We need him to focus on bringing America together, its people and its leaders, to clean up the mess.

We don't want his ideas; ideas need to come from the experts, not politicians. Politicians need to organize the right idea people (not for example, Dick Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) and then get people to work together on doing the right thing.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of hearing Obama's lame argument about having better judgement for being against the war. Like Bush implicating Iraq for 9/11, Obama has managed to convince many people that he actually VOTED against the war.

I've heard numerous people call in to the Washington Journal and many liberal talk shows to state this as fact. Of, course the hosts never bother to correct the callers. This BS just infuriates me. He was not there to vote, yet he uses this non-vote as the basis of his entire campaign. Could anyone be more phony than this?

Posted by: brigittepj | March 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton argument:

"Let us steal it fair and square."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Another possible scenario:

Inauguration night. At 3 a.m. the phone rings and Michelle answers. It's for you 'hon', a guy named Medvedev. Wasn't he the guy who kissed me at the Inauguration Ball?, the President asks. No 'hon', that was Kasparov.

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets the nomination, its going to wind up being President McCain.

From Obama's repeated use of cocaine, to the guy on the net who accuses Obama of having a homosexual affair with him and has now passed a lie detector test to the fact that Obama let the people who supported him rot in slums, Obama has way too many negatives to get elected.

Republicans were scared of this election turning into a referendum on Bill Clinton vs. George Bush, which Republicans would lose and what will happen if Hillary is the candidate, even though netiher Bill Clinton nor George Bush is running.

The real Obama is a real jerk.
People in Chicago know that already, and the rest of the country will know it soon.

The question is whether the rest of the country will wake up in time.

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to throw in and vote with my grown children this time. They and my grandchildren are about to inherit this gnarly, bankrupt mess we call our political and economic condition. I'm so sorry, kids. I still love my country, but I hate what we've done to it, not to mention what it's doing to you and will cost you. I guess I just love you better!

If I weren't already determined to pull the lever for Obama, the rabid "pushers" of popular conservatism (listened to the radio lately?) would have turned me his way. They are clear about their motives...can anyone wonder what they are up to? Why would the conservative gurus urge their minions to cross-over and vote for Hillary in the primaries and caucuses? Why would they go on wholesale attack and recite their litanies of fear in their inharmonious chorus to discredit him? Why do they want Hillary to win the democratic nomination?

Hmm, let me think! Could they be chanting against Obama because they know their anointed candidate cannot win against him? Is Obama's defeat their only hope of perpetuating the gagging national mediocrity that feeds them? How dull and lifeless do they look against this novice who sparkles with hope, enthusiasm, energy and optimism?

A more practical conclusion: they couldn't find anyone on their bench who could stand up to Obama's brand of charisma. There was no one on that bench whose freshness resonated with my heretofore anti-political thirty and forty-something kids. The keepers of the status-quo had to be worried about their own futures if some new force emerged in this country that made our next generation excited for the first time in their lives about our country's potential for greatness and place in the world. So of course they had to try to squash it.

It wouldn't bother me if Obama didn't have a minute of experience in public office. In fact, the less of that kind of experience, especially earned on the slimy beltway, the better. If one keeps doing what she's always done and expects a different outcome...well, you know the rest of that one. The insanity plea, certainly.

Choices in this election? More of the same or something different. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Posted by: decamp | March 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Will Obama supporters wake up before its too late?
Obama isn't the kind of person they think he is.
Their idealism is very nice, but they show a naivety not seen since "the children's crusade"

The real Obama isn't a very nice guy, or a very honest one. He's as crooked a politician as they come and he let his supporters rot in slums while he got rich.

Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

Posted by: svreader | March 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Texas is not going Democratic no matter who wins"

is the best explanation why Obama did so well with white males in Texas, otherwise the message would be no less clear but louder: hey mister, you are not selling your wonder cookies here!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Thinker,

Which way did the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee vote, you know, the guy who had access to the classified briefings and actually read the NIE Report?

And those senators who now support Obama, did they happen to publicly apologize for getting their vote wrong? Do you think maybe they are impressed with Obama's judgment on an issue they got wrong that has cost untold blood and treasure?

It might give you comfort that Clinton voted with Strom Thurmond on the most important vote in recent memory. We're still waiting for either of them to apologize. It's going to be a long wait. At least Strom has an excuse.

Chew on that.

Posted by: optimyst | March 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

1. Obama's response to Clinton's fear-mongering is effective. One point is to contrast his good judgment to her poor judgment. Claiming a lifetime of experience, itself a laughable assertion, means nothing if it taught you nothing. Clinton's effort to triangulate every issue has and will cost her among Democrats.

2. The DNC chose to enforce its rules. That is why the people of Florida and Michigan have lost their voice in the primary process. If they bend over for Clinton now, their rules mean nothing. If they insist on a 'do-over,' Obama might well win them both. But they can't hand uncontested elections to Clinton.

3. Regarding the 'you might be an idiot' post, I can't imagine a less effective way to try to win someone over to your side. I would say anyone who would post such a thing... might be an idiot. Rather address the entire thing, one observation: if you think Hillary Clinton deserves credit for things her husband did, you might be clinching the case for your being an idiot.

4. As for the assertion that Obama is unelectable because Clinton beat him in one swing state (Ohio), that's nonsense. All she has shown is that she can beat Obama in Ohio in a Democratic primary. That does not even show she can beat McCain, nor does it show that Obama would not in the same state. This argument for Clinton is simply a non-sequitur.

The other big states Clinton won are not swing states. Texas is not going Democratic no matter who wins. California is not going Republican no matter who wins. And so on.

Posted by: johnuw93 | March 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

A possible scenario:

Two years from now the UN Security Council meets to vote a resolution presented by the European Union, rejecting Kurdistan's self proclaimed independence.

The red phone rings and the question posted to the President is this: How should we respond?

Without even thinking about it, came the answer: eh ... eh ... eh ... well, that is none of our busisness now, vote PRESENT!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse


It's Clinton or McCain. NObama.


Posted by: Thinker | March 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

LIST OF THOSE WHO VOTED "YEA" ON THE USE OF US FORCES IN IRAQ IF THE PRESIDENT NEEDED TO.

NOTE THREE NAMES CURRENTLY IN OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN: DODD, KERRY, DASCHEL.

NOTICE A FEW OTHERS WHO VOTED WITH HILLARY: EDWARDS, McCAIN, BIDEN, LEIBERMAN

NOTICE MR. OBAMA'S NAME ISN'T ON THIS LIST. BECAUSE HE WASN'T IN WASHINGTON DC - HE WASN'T ELECTED TO THIS LIST - HE NEVER HAD INFORMATION THESE PEOPLE HAD AND HE NEVER VOTED ON THIS WAR.

PERIOD. HE GAVE A NICE SAFE, UNINFORMED SPEECH FROM ILLINOIS.

AND - YOU CAN ADD TO THIS LIST ALMOST EVERY AMERICAN ALIVE AT THE TIME - SABERS RATTLING AND FLAGS WAVING - SEEKING JUSTICE IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER. THEY'VE ALL CHANGED THEIR MINDS NOW. SO HAS MOST OF THIS LIST.

MR. OBAMA'S ARGUMET IS SO STALE AND FULL OF OMISSIONS ABOUT HIS PLACE OF IMPORTANCE AT THAT TIME THAT - WELL, IT SMELLS LIKE A BIG FAT DEAD FISH.

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R)


As my mother would always say "Chew on THAT"!

Posted by: Thinker | March 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The idiot knows, that the woman who knew of her husband's philandering with the likes of Jennifer Flowers , Paula Jones etc and called it a vast right wing conspiracy is the wisdom of Jacksmith.
The idiot knows that the First Lady who entertained the likes of Johnny Chung, and Hsu at the White House after they had illegally , raised large sums of money for the Clinton's political chest and were later convicted for so doing.; is the wisdom of Jacksmith.
The idiot knows, that it is alledged that Bill Clinton evaded the draft, never had the military service experience, foreign affairs experience, and the moral dignity of George Bush, never answered the 3.00 am call as George Bush when the the Soveit Union was disintegrating, eastern europe was in turmoil, saddam had invaded Kuwait,and presented himself as more qualified to be commander in chief, is the wisdom of Jacksmith.
The idiot knows that a woman who has never answered that 3.00am phone call, was cowed by George Bush to vote to go to war, excercised the poorest judgement when it came to the Iraq war, the Iran resolution, and the taking the largest donations from lobbyist while saying she will fight for the middle class, is the Wisdom Of Jacksmith.
It is such wisdom that resides in deceit and error, the very practice of the Clintons.
It is Obama or Mccain. NO to Clinton

Posted by: samiaelsberesford | March 8, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Dan19: I think what Bill Clinton will be remembered for is: eliminating a deficit and creating a record surplus, bringing unemployment from over 7% to under 4%, a tripling of the Dow-Jones average during his term, eight years in office without a day of recession, getting the Brady handgun registration bill passed, eight straight years of the crime rate going down... In short improvements in the things that affect people's lives.

Posted by: hawkeyes | March 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Dear Jack Smith

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Hillary Clinton with only 8 years of direct "hands on" legislative experience is more qualified than Barack Obama with 11 years of experience. It's simple math. And being a part-time wife for the President does not count. Do you think Debby Clarke Belichick could coach the Pat's and actually win the Super Bowl because she was married to a man named Bill who coached a football team? If you think either of these things you are an idiot.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Hillary Clinton with no successful experience in running a business can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Barack Obama who worked in the trenches with the poorest of Chicago and came from next to nothing himself. Hillary Rodman's husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the economy already plummeting in the wake of the Tech-Stock Bubble Burst, and in reaction she decided to vote to take away consumer protections by voting to stiffen bankruptcy laws that now has poor people even poorer.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama, whose Health Care Plan is backed by Bill Clinton's own people is not more feasible than Hillary's, who by the way, in the midst of a health care crisis back in 1993, failed miserably to establish any beneficial healthcare plan and was barred from any major policy issues for the remainder of Bill Clinton's presidency. Next to Bill fondling other women it was the biggest failure of the Clinton legacy.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama who is loved worldwide cannot consolidate nations to fight terror, and still manage to get us out of Iraq better than Hillary Clinton. She voted for the war and even though she now thinks we should not be fighting there, does not think invading Iraq was a mistake, so why does she want to pull out? She failed to read a simple report that hundreds of other US leaders in the congress and senate did to bring them to the decision it was a bad idea (oops). Her husband (Bill Clinton) went to war by bombing milk factories (oops) and heading us into one of the most embarrassing US missions in Somalia yet failed to stop a genocide in Rawanda. He also invaded Haiti and re-installed a president who Bush later had to un-install (oops).
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no ties to big oil, big coal or the big energy lobby is better suited to saying NO to the lobbyists who care more about making a buck than our health and safety.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama who passed up an opportunity to work in the US Supreme Court to improve education in Chicago is not better than Hillary Clinton whose only claim to fame is what her husband did and did not do...like Bill's failure to stifle criminal student loan operations.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama who has less time owing things to Washington lobbyists and more "hands on" experience and the world ON YOUR SIDE like Europe and Africa is not better suited to be President.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries and caucuses are not doing so because he is a unifier while the Clinton's are, and always will be, dividers.
Best regards
Adam Schifter...

Posted by: aschifter | March 8, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF:

You think 8 years as a spouse to a president qualifies you as president. If you think you can claim your spouse's experience as your own, please allow me to do your next surgery, as my experience of being a wife of a surgeon gives me 21 years of experience under my belt.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF:

If you think any experience in politics is better then good common sense. Just look at where "experience" in Washington has gotten us.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF:

You are supporting Hillary after seeing what she is stooping to.

She suggests Obama as a running mate, yet she tell her supporters how he's so wrong for Washington.

She uses the "fear" card in claiming she is more capible. Isn't this what we have been getting from Bush for the past 6 years. I believe that is a mentality we are looking to get away from.

She begrades Obama, knowing very well that he could become the Democratic canidate. Knowing very well that the Repubs are going to use her words against him in November. Doesn't seem like a Democratic thing to do.

and finally,

YOU ARE AN IDIOT:

If you don't see the difference Obama can bring to Washington. He is so smart and has such good common sense.

If you don't see that he will have the best minds helping him straighten up our country and our image around the world.

If you can't see that OBAMA is the only person running that can beat McCain in November.

If you haven't noticed the excitement OBAMA has brought to our country and the American people, as well as people from all over the world!

OBAMA!!!

Posted by: mommabird1 | March 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida party leaders ran unauthorized early primaries. You can't seat delegates from states where neither candidate campaigned (because they followed party rules) and when Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states. That would be grossly and clearly unfair. If the party wants to allow redo primaries that would be fair. But cost and other issues will prevent that from happening.

Arguing that because Hillary won the big states and thus Obama would lose to McCain in those states is just ignorant. And saying Obama isn't electable is equally ignorant. In a recent national pole Obama beat McCain by a 4% greater margin that Hillary beat McCain. Nominating Hillary would actually energize the core Republican base far more than Obama and rally support for McCain just like that NY Times article.

Last point--the 3:00 am phone call campaign ad is classic Republic fear mongering and I found it offensive... and insulting to the electorate. Can you say "Willie Horton"? This is not what I want from my leaders and if that's the best she's got to offer I'd prefer to retire now to NY or Arkansas.

Posted by: davidmckittrick | March 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

No, I'm not an idiot. But you. . . No that would be stricken. But had Mrs. Clinton watched The West Wing more she'd know the Red Phone is down in the Situation Room -- not on her night stand or Bill's

Lee

www.goodmorningusa.info

Posted by: lelandnichols1 | March 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Okay folks. It is passed due to do more listening to both candidates on issues, and less bashing.

Obama, I want to know more details about how you plan to help the economy. I have done my homework, and I am still doing it.

I am very sick and tired of all those who do not spend the time digging up real facts, and spend more time dealing with hyperheadlines. How about some smart factual responses, eh? I am REAL facts.

Posted by: cyberaim | March 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

No discussion of the Wyoming caucuses? Or of the fact that Obama is trying to break his three-state losing streak?

By the way, I have heard several people say that Sen. Clinton is somehow like McCain or Bush. That is just nonsense. The fact is there are very few policy differences between Clinton and Obama and enormous differences between either of them and McCain or Bush.

Posted by: hawkeyes | March 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The United States of America is not a family-run business. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that two families are presenting themselves as the best suited from among the 300 million who live here? It's no wonder a living equivalent of Thomas Jefferson hasn't been seen for so many years.

The Bush and Clinton legacies are not pretty, and Bill Clinton will not go down in history as a great president. While the Republican Party committed virtual treason by holding up his administration over crimes and misdemeanors that pale by comparison to the current Bush's, there was nothing particularly brilliant about Clinton's trajectory as chief executive.
What he will be remembered for are the Machiavellian tactics he employed to successfully "out dirty-trick" the Republican machine.

If Sen. Clinton wants to continue to take credit for her husband's administrative successes, she must also accept its seediness, bad temper, and failures. Even Al Gore distanced himself from the Clintons.

Sen. Obama has appeared out of nowhere with a voice that rings true. His years of experience in life and government are fewer than Sen. Clinton's, but his understanding, temperament, and wisdom far exceed what we have seen in any presidential candidate for 45 years.

It might be time to reread "Primary Colors" and "The Audacity of Hope" before casting your ballot. The characters of the individuals in question are there both in and between the lines.

Posted by: dan19 | March 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

OK, so what is exactly wrong with Obama's Experience? He has more legislative experience than Hillary, though not more than Bill. She touts her experience and she has had all but 2 years of her own (not her husband's) federal experience and none at the state level. Her time as first lady is shady, as she won't even release her logs that said where she went and what she did. The first lady is typically a diplomat to other countries leaders, kind of like a corporate housewife. In terms of Florida and Michigan...she was alright with the terms of the agreement she made, and did not raise a stink about the DNC rules until after she was behind in the polls/results. When she was ahead, it was OK that they be denied, but now that she is behind they need to be seated? I agree they should be seated, but I also believe that she should have fought the DNC from the beginning if she truly cared about the issue.

To JackSMith1...you prove my point that the experience she wants everyone to vote for is not her own personal experience...it is her husband's.

Final thought...Hillary also touts that she has been "Vetted"...again, she thinks that because it happened to her husband, it she gains that experience. The only thing the Republicans put her under the bus for was the Whitewater land deal. They didn't dig into her like they could have. The republicans haven't raised much money, but you will see thyat happen just so Hillary doesn't get to be president.

Posted by: cgallaway2000 | March 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse


Really pretty pathetic of him. And getting really stale.

Obama criticizes Clinton. I don't think he can push that one out there any longer. It's beginning to smell. His CHIEF ADVISER said herself Mr. Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth. His plan to leave Iraq is just "a best case scenerio" she told the interviewer.

Two CHIEF ADVISERS talking to other governments. Assuring them what he says to American's isn't what he means. Oh nice. And who would his loose lipped advisers be in DC? Scary.

I actually met a very intelligent person the other day who didn't realize that Obama was not in DC and didn't vote on the Iraq question (the question, by the way, was to give George Bush permission to make a decision - not a decision to go to war)

Obama presents himself and his "speech" like he voted against the war. He wasn't even in DC. He also never mentions as he "attacks" Senator Clinton, that Senators John Kerry and Tom Daschle - who are running his campaign for him BOTH VOTED EXACTLY THE SAME AS HILLARY CLINTON. (by the way, why isn't Kerry at work doing what we pay him for? - Kennedy, too).

Mr. Obama made his "speech" safely from Illinois, without the information KERRY, DASHEL and CLINTON had when then all voted on this Iraq issue. It wasn't a vote to go to war, it was a vote to trust the President.

Obama is a LIAR. He tells this lie over and over and over. With the guilt of omission.

Now we find out OBAMA'S SENIOR ADVISERS are assuring other governments that what he says on the campaign trail - to the voters - is nothing to be worried about. He will change that when elected, these things aren't his fast and firm decisions.

Again, MR. OBAMA NEVER VOTED ON IRAQ - he wasn't even in DC.

I'm amazed at people not knowing this by this time.

MR. KERRY, MR. DASCHLE (who work in Obama's campaign)
BOTH VOTED THE SAME AS HILLARY CLINTON

So, if Mr. Obama wants to "attack" someone - why doesn't he try his friends the Trolls?

Obama has nothing else he can talk about, nothing else he can point to but his speech from Illinois.

It's kinda pathetic. Certainly not "experience".


Here is Mr. Obama's online resume for folks who are interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU


Posted by: Thinker | March 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 - You quote selectively. Here's the full story:

---

On the CBS show "60 Minutes," Clinton was asked, "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?" "Well of course not, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says," Clinton said. "And you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Pressed by the reporter about "taking Sen. Obama at his word," Clinton -- asked again if she believes he is Muslim -- continued: "No, no, why would I -- there's nothing to base that on -- as far as I know," she added. She emphasized the word "I."

---

So, let's see. Well of course not. I take him at his word. There's no basis for that. There isn't any reason to doubt that.

Exactly how many ways do you want her to say NO?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

If she has had 35 years of experience, wouldn't that make her 25 at the time. What possible 3 a.m. decisions could she have been making at 25!

Posted by: denise2233 | March 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Gee, the article does not give one response from the Clinton campaign. Talk about one sided.

Obama is already back pedaling on his Iraq position. He doesn't have a clue what to do about Iraq. His girl got schooled on that interview, and it reveals how idealistically naive the Obama camp is.

Posted by: schooner6 | March 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

For people who say they vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination:
Its your vote and you can vote whoever you want to. No one is asking you vote for Obama. But don't try to steal the nomination. Whoever has the most pledged deleagtes, more votes (even its 1 vote), more states should be the nominee. AGREED?

Posted by: premail | March 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

zukermand - I'll answer the question. Because the political leaders in those states decided to defy the rules of BOTH parties. Now here's a question for you. Why should deliberately breaking the rules be rewarded? Both states were warned explicitly that an early vote would result in a 50% penalty for the Heffalumps and 100% for the Donkeys. They knew full well what the consequences were and did it anyway.

Corrollary question: why should one count an election where two of the three main candidates weren't on the ballot?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

What is scary about Clinton is that she believes that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama when McCain wants to stay in Iraq perhaps forever. What does that say about Clinton's judgement? Does that mean that she approves of McCain being in charge? That is what she said, he has the experience. McCain would keep us in Iraq. She knows that, yet she says he has the experience needed to be President? Not to me. I don't want McCain in there keeping us in Iraq. I sadly must conclude that Clinton is not serious about pulling out of Iraq if she believes McCain has what it takes to be commander in chief. We all know she is a hawk that has changed her mind on military issues. She won't even apologize for her vote on going into Iraq. Would she flip-flop on us if she would be commander in chief? I don't trust her anymore.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 8, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

How exactly does being the spouse of a governor and president qualify as applicable experience? She didn't even have security clearance as First Lady. And claiming to have played a significant role in brokering the Northern Ireland agreements? David Trimble says otherwise.

This "experience" she keeps trotting out is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen.

Posted by: ewelsh | March 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Down Hillary can't control her husband so how do you expect her to control a country?

If you liked Bush, you'll love Hillary.

Posted by: diliff1 | March 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

If you think Senator Clinton has 35 years of valid experience, you are the idiot. There were interns in the Clinton White House with more experience. And "anybody can give a speech." Well, she can't, even with a paid staff of writers. And her tantrums can't make fiction truth, either.

Posted by: Kawela92 | March 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the democratic nominee, I will vote for McCain, as many others will do.

Posted by: hao | March 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Clinton said that "as far as I know" Obama is not a Muslim. Well as far as I know she isn't a racist who has decided to appeal to the core of her support: bigots.

Yuck. Do you Clinton hacks really think you are helping this country?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama's worse enemy is OBAMA HIMSELF! Keeping his mouth shut on things he does not understand would be a better strategy, as he has learned from his past voting record. Just say: PRESENT!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Casey Knowles, a High School Senior in Washington state, recently discovered she was one of the sleeping children in Clinton's controversial "Children" ad appearing prior to the Texas primaries.

Knowles, a supporter of Barack Obama was shocked that she had contributed to the national security message of a candidate that she passionately opposes.

When asked by The New Argument, this is what Knowles had to say about her appearance in Clinton's ad:

"While I love Hillary, I would much rather hear Barack Obama's voice at the other end of the phone at 3am.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/08/girl-in-clintons-3am-ph_n_90535.html

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | March 8, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

(1) "... I will bring this war to an end in 2009."

(2) "... I won't want to see Iraq collapse....So we have to be careful if we're going to end this war."

(1)+(2) does not add up to anything!

Either Obama is naive or he does not understand Iraq's situation at all!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton argument:

"Let us steal it fair and square."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Larry David:

"I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/on-the-red-phone_b_90338.html

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | March 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Since Clinton has won California, Ohio, and New York, her campaign is now claiming Obama can't win in the general election because he hasn't won the big states that democrats must carry to win in November.

This argument holds no water. True, he lost in states like Calif, but these big states will vote for the democratic nominee regardless of who it is. Does her campaign really think these big states would only vote democratic only if it's Hilary? A very weak argument and it shows you how desperate her campaign is becoming. If this is the best they can do, she's in a lot of trouble.

Posted by: shahzadsst | March 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Why can't Hillary question Obama's position on the Iraq war? He says one thing to voters on withdrawing troops, then another to foreigners. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Public financing, NAFTA, now Iraq. Do we really know Obama. Take a look at his 'present' vote on the Iran resolution. He didn't vote against it, nor for it. Just present. What kind of vote is that? Is he always going to vote 'present' on controversial issues? He's lucky he wasn't in the Senate back in 2002 because he would have had to actually vote on the Iraq resolution. Would he have voted 'no' or 'present', you think? I guess we'll never know . . .

KUCINICH 2012!

Posted by: howdy999 | March 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Gee maybe Hillary should've been called a beeeatch instead of monster because that is her description from the right wing. And she will do anything to win. So what did Obama's advisor say that isn't true?

Posted by: AverageJane | March 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

TAH1,
Please check the Math above. Its mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination. If you all think winning big states matter then why do you want to hold primary and caucus in other states and waste money. Just pick some 20 states and select the nominee. By the end of the primary, he will have more pledged delegates, more votes and won more states. So it won't be hard for us to get 325 super delegates out of 750. So ask Hillary to stop destroying the party and just quit.

Posted by: premail | March 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

You might be an idiot...
if you think Bill Clinton is going to be president by voting for his wife.

Posted by: p.delaney | March 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't mind voting for Hillary but she is more like McCain. They both have almost similar record until she started running for president. She also think McCain is more qualified than Obama. Probably she is trying to be McCain veep.
Regarding Florida & Michigan, When 48 states played by the rules why can't they do it. If you let them seated then it will set a bad example in future as every state try to be first in the nation. Thats why they have rules and both the states should have followed it.

Posted by: premail | March 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

GAME OVER.

Obama is unelectable.

If you can't win Ohio and the other big states that are the must wins for the Dems in November, it's over. Hillary has proven she can win big in the big states that are the must wins for the Dems in November. That makes Hillary the most electable candidate.

In Ohio, Obama outspent Hillary 3 to 1 yet won ONLY 5 out of 88 counties in the state.

No amount of money is going to get Obama over 50% of the vote.

It's time for Obama to exit the race and the Dems need to unite behind Hillary, NOW.

Hillary should choose a white male with strong national security credentials to make her strongest ticket.

Posted by: TAH1 | March 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

No...your the idiot.

Posted by: pdurand | March 8, 2008 12:06 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 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

And why exactly is is it you believe the voters of Florida and Michigan should be disenfranchised?

Posted by: zukermand | March 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Math problem:
Obama leads clinton by 150 pledged delegates and it will hold till the end of the primary. So out of 750 super delegates (actually 796 but Florida & Michigan super delegates don't count). Obama just needs 325 super delegates to win the nomination. we already have 210. we just need 115 more but for hillary she needs atleast 180 more. Thats impossible for her and thats the reason they are pushing for Florida and Michigan. According to Dean and Pelosi they will not be seated so no matter how they spin it we still have 90% chance of getting the nomination.

Posted by: premail | March 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

That is good to hear directly from him, for those were pretty incredible comments by Hillary yesterday. Then again, with figures like these, Clinton needs to keep pressing;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor:

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

Posted by: davidmwe | March 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Good to know one candidate in this race can make sense.

Meanwhile, here's a snarky new slogan for Clinton's campaign:
"It's all down Hill from here."

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Posted by: TomJx | March 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company