Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Takes the Gloves Off

By Shailagh Murray
CHICAGO -- Sen. Barack Obama entered the newspaper-strewn, coffee-stained coach cabin of his campaign plane looking tired and worn but flashing some fight.

Vanquished at the polls for the first time in a month, Obama said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's negative attacks had likely harmed him with voters, and vowed to take a more aggressive stance as the battle moves on to Pennsylvania.

"This week she made a series of arguments about why she would be a superior candidate," Obama said, a whiff of frustration in his voice that he may have waited too long. "She made the experience argument that she's been making repeatedly, particularly about foreign policy and her ability to handle a crisis. I think it's important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it. Which I think has been going on for quite some time."

For instance, "What exactly is this foreign experience that she's claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries" as First Lady, but "it's not clear what she had negotiated -- treaties or agreements, or she was handling crises during this period of time? My sense is, the answer is no. So, I have not seen any evidence she is better equipped to handle a crisis. And if the only criteria is longevity in Washington, then she's certainly not going to beat John McCain on that."

Character issues also would be explored, Obama predicted. "She's made the argument that she's been thoroughly vetted in contrast to me. I think it's important to examine that argument because if the suggestion is somehow on issues of ethics or disclosure or transparency, that somehow she's going to have the better record than I have, and will be better able to withstand Republican attacks, I think that's an issue that should be tested," said Obama. "So, I think that over the coming weeks, we will join her in that argument."

Later, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod was unequivocal that the Obama team had had enough."What's good for the goose is good for the gander," he said. "There's no doubt we have held ourselves to a standard of engagement. I don't think the public is looking for the candidates to savage each other...but you can't play by two sets of rules, and we understand that."

"Let's let there be a vetting, but the vetting is going to be on both candidates," Axelrod said. "She doesn't want to release her tax returns, okay, fine. She says she's a master at foreign policy. She's a master at health care. What happened? Why was it such an abysmal failure? Why did we have to wait 14 more years?"

Obama said he saw shades of New Hampshire in the Texas and Ohio losses. In all three states, Clinton had held commanding leads that Obama erased as the primary dates drew closer. But Clinton bounced back at the end, recapturing voters who had previously been in her camp. "They'd gotten a little squishy but they were still leaning in her direction and they went back to where they were before," Obama explained. "It's not as if they were true undecideds."

He said he expected to rebound quickly, with wins in the Wyoming caucuses on Saturday and Mississippi next Tuesday. And despite the looming showdown in Pennsylvania, he said the campaign would stick to its strategy of competing everywhere, by contesting all 12 of the remaining caucuses and primaries.

"We think we'll do well this week," Obama said. "We feel that there's a strong possibility that we gain substantially more delegates out of Wyoming and Mississippi than Sen. Clinton gained last night. So we will continue to build our delegate lead. We will continue to campaign in every state. We will not be cherry picking which states we deem important, because our attitude is every state is important...And I think that going into the convention with more votes, more states, more primaries, more caucuses, more delegates, we're going to be in a pretty strong position."

"We're going to be on the road for a few more weeks guys," Obama said, returning to his seat to catch some sleep.

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 5, 2008; 12:07 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Makes Bush Wait
Next: Crowded Texas Caucuses Leave Results Up in Air

Comments

mwexgn cwmsa xbyido
buspar and headache

Posted by: buspar and headache | August 20, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

mwexgn cwmsa xbyido
buspar and headache

Posted by: buspar and headache | August 20, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cost of lexapro versus celexa | August 18, 2008 5:01 AM | Report abuse

mrgluwy yqbxick
geodon consumer information

Posted by: geodon consumer information | August 17, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

edqh etwjf gwoelqd xvyjfd
does lexapro make you feel good

Posted by: does lexapro make you feel good | August 17, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effexor withdrawal | August 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zyprexa and agranulocytosis | August 17, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

sqpl yzlwjqu
elavil medication type

Posted by: elavil medication type | August 17, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

wdez xhgsda
levitra precautions

Posted by: levitra precautions | August 17, 2008 5:19 AM | Report abuse

uptrln lsadu zciameq lnudpk
zyban directions

Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: emsam how much is cost | August 16, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: emsam how much is cost | August 16, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

hgfw khvncr docr safzcm
effexor medication chat

Posted by: effexor medication chat | August 16, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

gzku aspvwo xqrai fwtu
adivan vs effexor

Posted by: adivan vs effexor | August 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: does buspar work for panic attacks | August 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: does buspar work for panic attacks | August 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

lbpkou ufhnj vqnf omcqp
how propecia works

Posted by: how propecia works | May 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy cheap ultram wall | May 11, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

myljgbs yfqx
50 mg ultram

Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

ewqbcr ylpiadx dziykoe
buy dir ultram

Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

dbqvgzm uqcdl
overdose ultram

Posted by: overdose ultram | May 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drug effects more side ultram | May 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

msaieh emzyuhqk vqza vfkjbgpz abpgsdj qidjftnk igexzvk hpdo drfyzoxpa

Posted by: cmsdixkp ivem | April 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

xvnud jqdlib uqmvybdie onvck zkwbn uosgefn dvga

Posted by: vflyxuz ybzamwjk | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I am a white 66 year old woman who always has wanted a woman president, but not this one. Unlike Hillary, I graduated at the top of my class at a top law school but was denied opportunties explicitly because I was a woman. Hillary went to Yale which did not allow women when I went to law school. I assume that if she'd finished at or near the top of her class or been eligible for the Yale L.J. we'd certainly know about it.

What exactly is her foreign policy experience? If she's going to take credit for what happened when her husband was president then she has to disclose all the papers dealing with whatever she did or did not do as first lady. And where are her tax returns along with documents evidencing the source of her (their -- from a joint account) $5 million loan to her campaign.

Look at the management of her campaign and its fiscal irresponsibility? Is not this the sort of White House we'd have with her? She has displayed a remarkable lack of executive leadership and fiscal responsibility.

What did she personally accomplish on behalf of women during her several years in Arkansas? 35 years of experience? That's beginning with the day she graduated law school -- which is ridiculous. Moreover, if that's the relevant period, Senator Obama was working as a community organizer for next to nothing following both his graduation from Columbia and then again after he graduated from Harvard Law School where he was President of the law review, a remarkable achievement that evidences extraordinary brilliance, and had numerous prestigious offers all of which he turned down.

I am a former tentured law professor despite all the odds against me because I was lucky enough to have a "man ahead of his time" as the dean of the law school and that time when I received high recommendations from my professors and the distinguished justice for whom I clerked. I also know some of Senator Obama's former law professors who speak so highly of him.

Did she work on civil rights cases as did Senator Obama (and myself)? Did she actively work to promote women's rights as I did, most often to my professional detriment? Did she ever teach constitutional law as Senator Obama did at one of the best law schools in the country?

Has any head of a "foreign policy" committee asked her to go to a country to assist in negoiating national security matters since she has been as senator as Senator Lugar (R), minority leader of the Intelligence Committee, asked Senator Obama to do when the two of them (along with others I presume) went to Russia to begin re-negoiating nuclear arms control agreement(s)?

What exactly has she achieved since she has been a senator? What concrete evidence is there that she can inspire others or work with Republicans to produce actual positive change or any results at all?

I also wish to state my agreement with the substance of the following comment:

Watching Hillery was pathetic [and disheartening -- is this the woman I've worked so hard all my life to have available to her this extraordinary opportunity?]. I honstely think she exagerates her experience factor and know-how solution. She is such a divisive figure []. I am a woman and I definately would be so proud to have a woman president in such a great country which offers such a diversity. But truly I would not like to see this woman becoming a presidnet, ANY OTHER [qualified] WOMAN but her [of which there are or soon will be -- look at all the remarkable female senators and governors who support Senator Obama]. She has all of a sudden started caring for people because she needs the votes....where was she before her campaign began.....

Posted by: pwalterkumar | March 5, 2008 04:02 PM


Posted by bbrudno - March 10, 2008

Posted by: bbrudno | March 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

For me Obama is once in life time opportunity where as Hillary more or less an old furniture. Which we can only paint to look good temporarily. She is not sincere about the strengh of her opponent. She has insulted his candidacy quite a few times. The greatest insult was offering him vice president position while she has not rise up to that level yet. If we look at this henestly her deceiving and misleading tactics puts her into the catagory of Monster who will do anything to win for which comment Power had to resign as Obama,s strategist. Now am convinced that actually Hillary forced the situation hear that what other think about her because of her own dirty tricks.

Where US is now Hillary leadership and motivation would not take much ahead from where it is now. With Obama's leadership that possibility is there though it is not tested. Hillary is more or less tested leader who wouldn't be able to bring much hope to this declining power position of US. All eligible voters must vote to elect their leader. Represetation by small percentage of people should not decided for a presidential candidate. Later would not blame anybody but ourselves if we can not define our future.

Posted by: yadisharma | March 10, 2008 4:38 AM | Report abuse

To those who are voting based on "experience" Time magazine had a very good issue on Experience. Articles covered everything from presidential experience to the science of experience vs expert. BTW, Obama has more experience than Lincoln. The most experienced president ... Buchanon, who is considered one of the worst presidents in history. Check it out, be an informed voter.

Posted by: Adelewg | March 9, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear America,

As a U.K. citizen looking in on this election campaign from the outside I must applaude Senator Obama as both a human being and a man of his word.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated an incredible level of restraint, despite the lowest form of political mud-slinging and provocation resorted to by the Clinton campaign.

A level of restraint that would be required daily by the next President of the United States, the leader of the free world.

I would suggest to the broader American public, and particularily to those States still to vote for their preferred Democratic nominee (Pennsylvania and Mississippi included), that such restraint should never, EVER, be seen as a sign of weakness. This IS strength.

This is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a Christian MAN of strenght. Senator Barack Obama is an AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MAN of Strength.

I WOULD TRUST SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WITH THE CARE OF MY CHILDREN.

I WOULDN'T TRUST MRS HILLARY CLINTON WITH THE T.V. REMOTE CONTROL, NEVER MIND ANSWERING THE PRESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE AT 3 AM.

The restraint shown by Senator Obama recently, in the face of outright lies and misleading remarks, is indeed the sign of an intelligent, considerate leader, concerned with making the RIGHT decision, and not simply just 'a' decision.

Poor decision making at Presidential level by George W Bush (gun holder) and Mrs Hillary Clinton (supplier of bullets for that gun in 2002) has led to the catastrophe for Americans' that is Vietnam, sorry, Iraq.

1. Thousands of brave American lives lost. For what?

2. America,'the home of the brave', relentlessly bombing some of the poorest children in the world from the safety of 50,000 feet. For what?

3. Tens of Billions of American Dollars spent funding No's 1 and 2. Dollars that could have been spent on such lofty ideals as free Health Care for every single American and investment in American communities to create jobs for American citizens. For what?

George W Bush has presided over the horror show that is Iraq.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON FULLY SANCTIONED THIS HORROR SHOW WITH HER INABILITY TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION ON IRAQ IN 2002.

Mrs Hillary Clinton's actions FAILED AMERICA and FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, on an unimaginable scale and at a time when it mattered the most. With the blood of those brave soldiers and those children on her hands, can she be trusted? Can she?

I THINK NOT!

The United States' ability to restore itself to former glories must surely rest on the broad, restrained, articulate, considerate, common sense shoulders of Senator Barack Obama.

Mrs Hillary Clinton displayed so much personal weakness and failure on matters of integrity during the Texas and Ohio campaigns that she must surely never be trusted.

Why did she allow her campaign to trot out 'that picture' of Mr Obama?

She is weak, and rested her political fortune and reputation, with that of white supremasists pandering to the lowest common denominator.

SHAME ON MRS HILLARY CLINTON! SHE SHAMED HERSELF, AMERICA, AND HUMANITY BY STOOPING TO THAT INCREDIBLE LOW.

You can only blame so much on a shambolic campaign strategy team.

Mrs Hillary Clinton must accept personal responsibility for the worst example of fear mongering and subliminal racism I have seen in my entire adult life. It was disgusting.

This fear mongering and subliminal rascism was designed, constructed and deployed via the media by Mrs Hillary Clinton's campaign to manipulate the free thinking minds of the American public. I know it, YOU know it, and they including Mrs Hillary Clinton KNEW it!

(Even I can see that from here in Scotland, thousands of miles away)

Have the Mrs Hillary Clinton campaign team really resorted to such lows as doubting Senator Obama's devotion to the Christian Church, in order to 'win' some votes?

YES THEY HAVE. SHAME ON THEM AND HER.

Mrs Hillary Clintons failure to confirm this unequivocal fact is abhorent at best.

Have they assessed, wrongly I hope, that the majority of Americans believe the Fox 'News' channel is fact?

IT WOULD APPEAR SO.

If this is how Mrs Hillary Clinton reacts, responds and decides at a time when her own political future is at stake, what DISASTROUS decisions will she make and sanction if she ever becomes occupier of The Whitehouse?

AMERICA!

I love your country.

I have visited it many times.

I love your people.

I love, appreciate and understand the constitution on which your fantastic country is based.

I embrace it in my own life and not just as some romantic notion.

I believe in freedom, real freedom.

Your country is being scared to death by sections of your media.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.

Don't succumb to that fear.

You are braver than that.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES MORE.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES THE OUSTANDING NOMINEE THAT IS SENATOR BARACK OBAMA.

YOU'RE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM.

EMBRACE HIM AS A NATION, SIT BACK AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FLY.

your truly

j.dreczkowski@hotmail.co.uk

Posted by: j.dreczkowski | March 9, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear America,

As a U.K. citizen looking in on this election campaign from the outside I must applaude Senator Obama as both a human being and a man of his word.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated an incredible level of restraint, despite the lowest form of political mud-slinging and provocation resorted to by the Clinton campaign.

A level of restraint that would be required daily by the next President of the United States, the leader of the free world.

I would suggest to the broader American public, and particularily to those States still to vote for their preferred Democratic nominee (Pennsylvania and Mississippi included), that such restraint should never, EVER, be seen as a sign of weakness. This IS strength.

This is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a Christian MAN of strenght. Senator Barack Obama is an AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MAN of Strength.

I WOULD TRUST SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WITH THE CARE OF MY CHILDREN.

I WOULDN'T TRUST MRS HILLARY CLINTON WITH THE T.V. REMOTE CONTROL, NEVER MIND ANSWERING THE PRESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE AT 3 AM.

The restraint shown by Senator Obama recently, in the face of outright lies and misleading remarks, is indeed the sign of an intelligent, considerate leader, concerned with making the RIGHT decision, and not simply just 'a' decision.

Poor decision making at Presidential level by George W Bush (gun holder) and Mrs Hillary Clinton (supplier of bullets for that gun in 2002) has led to the catastrophe for Americans' that is Vietnam, sorry, Iraq.

1. Thousands of brave American lives lost. For what?

2. America,'the home of the brave', relentlessly bombing some of the poorest children in the world from the safety of 50,000 feet. For what?

3. Tens of Billions of American Dollars spent funding No's 1 and 2. Dollars that could have been spent on such lofty ideals as free Health Care for every single American and investment in American communities to create jobs for American citizens. For what?

George W Bush has presided over the horror show that is Iraq.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON FULLY SANCTIONED THIS HORROR SHOW WITH HER INABILITY TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION ON IRAQ IN 2002.

Mrs Hillary Clinton's actions FAILED AMERICA and FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, on an unimaginable scale and at a time when it mattered the most. With the blood of those brave soldiers and those children on her hands, can she be trusted? Can she?

I THINK NOT!

The United States' ability to restore itself to former glories must surely rest on the broad, restrained, articulate, considerate, common sense shoulders of Senator Barack Obama.

Mrs Hillary Clinton displayed so much personal weakness and failure on matters of integrity during the Texas and Ohio campaigns that she must surely never be trusted.

Why did she allow her campaign to trot out 'that picture' of Mr Obama?

She is weak, and rested her political fortune and reputation, with that of white supremasists pandering to the lowest common denominator.

SHAME ON MRS HILLARY CLINTON! SHE SHAMED HERSELF, AMERICA, AND HUMANITY BY STOOPING TO THAT INCREDIBLE LOW.

You can only blame so much on a shambolic campaign strategy team.

Mrs Hillary Clinton must accept personal responsibility for the worst example of fear mongering and subliminal racism I have seen in my entire adult life. It was disgusting.

This fear mongering and subliminal rascism was designed, constructed and deployed via the media by Mrs Hillary Clinton's campaign to manipulate the free thinking minds of the American public. I know it, YOU know it, and they including Mrs Hillary Clinton KNEW it!

(Even I can see that from here in Scotland, thousands of miles away)

Have the Mrs Hillary Clinton campaign team really resorted to such lows as doubting Senator Obama's devotion to the Christian Church, in order to 'win' some votes?

YES THEY HAVE. SHAME ON THEM AND HER.

Mrs Hillary Clintons failure to confirm this unequivocal fact is abhorent at best.

Have they assessed, wrongly I hope, that the majority of Americans believe the Fox 'News' channel is fact?

IT WOULD APPEAR SO.

If this is how Mrs Hillary Clinton reacts, responds and decides at a time when her own political future is at stake, what DISASTROUS decisions will she make and sanction if she ever becomes occupier of The Whitehouse?

AMERICA!

I love your country.

I have visited it many times.

I love your people.

I love, appreciate and understand the constitution on which your fantastic country is based.

I embrace it in my own life and not just as some romantic notion.

I believe in freedom, real freedom.

Your country is being scared to death by sections of your media.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.

Don't succumb to that fear.

You are braver than that.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES MORE.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES THE OUSTANDING NOMINEE THAT IS SENATOR BARACK OBAMA.

YOU'RE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM.

EMBRACE HIM AS A NATION, SIT BACK AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FLY.

your truly

j.dreczkowski@hotmail.co.uk

Posted by: j.dreczkowski | March 9, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear America,

As a U.K. citizen looking in on this election campaign from the outside I must applaude Senator Obama as both a human being and a man of his word.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated an incredible level of restraint, despite the lowest form of political mud-slinging and provocation resorted to by the Clinton campaign.

A level of restraint that would be required daily by the next President of the United States, the leader of the free world.

I would suggest to the broader American public, and particularily to those States still to vote for their preferred Democratic nominee (Pennsylvania and Mississippi included), that such restraint should never, EVER, be seen as a sign of weakness. This IS strength.

This is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a Christian MAN of strenght. Senator Barack Obama is an AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MAN of Strength.

I WOULD TRUST SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WITH THE CARE OF MY CHILDREN.

I WOULDN'T TRUST MRS HILLARY CLINTON WITH THE T.V. REMOTE CONTROL, NEVER MIND ANSWERING THE PRESIDENTIAL TELEPHONE AT 3 AM.

The restraint shown by Senator Obama recently, in the face of outright lies and misleading remarks, is indeed the sign of an intelligent, considerate leader, concerned with making the RIGHT decision, and not simply just 'a' decision.

Poor decision making at Presidential level by George W Bush (gun holder) and Mrs Hillary Clinton (supplier of bullets for that gun in 2002) has led to the catastrophe for Americans' that is Vietnam, sorry, Iraq.

1. Thousands of brave American lives lost. For what?

2. America,'the home of the brave', relentlessly bombing some of the poorest children in the world from the safety of 50,000 feet. For what?

3. Tens of Billions of American Dollars spent funding No's 1 and 2. Dollars that could have been spent on such lofty ideals as free Health Care for every single American and investment in American communities to create jobs for American citizens. For what?

George W Bush has presided over the horror show that is Iraq.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON FULLY SANCTIONED THIS HORROR SHOW WITH HER INABILITY TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION ON IRAQ IN 2002.

Mrs Hillary Clinton's actions FAILED AMERICA and FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, on an unimaginable scale and at a time when it mattered the most. With the blood of those brave soldiers and those children on her hands, can she be trusted? Can she?

I THINK NOT!

The United States' ability to restore itself to former glories must surely rest on the broad, restrained, articulate, considerate, common sense shoulders of Senator Barack Obama.

Mrs Hillary Clinton displayed so much personal weakness and failure on matters of integrity during the Texas and Ohio campaigns that she must surely never be trusted.

Why did she allow her campaign to trot out 'that picture' of Mr Obama?

She is weak, and rested her political fortune and reputation, with that of white supremasists pandering to the lowest common denominator.

SHAME ON MRS HILLARY CLINTON! SHE SHAMED HERSELF, AMERICA, AND HUMANITY BY STOOPING TO THAT INCREDIBLE LOW.

You can only blame so much on a shambolic campaign strategy team.

Mrs Hillary Clinton must accept personal responsibility for the worst example of fear mongering and subliminal racism I have seen in my entire adult life. It was disgusting.

This fear mongering and subliminal rascism was designed, constructed and deployed via the media by Mrs Hillary Clinton's campaign to manipulate the free thinking minds of the American public. I know it, YOU know it, and they including Mrs Hillary Clinton KNEW it!

(Even I can see that from here in Scotland, thousands of miles away)

Have the Mrs Hillary Clinton campaign team really resorted to such lows as doubting Senator Obama's devotion to the Christian Church, in order to 'win' some votes?

YES THEY HAVE. SHAME ON THEM AND HER.

Mrs Hillary Clintons failure to confirm this unequivocal fact is abhorent at best.

Have they assessed, wrongly I hope, that the majority of Americans believe the Fox 'News' channel is fact?

IT WOULD APPEAR SO.

If this is how Mrs Hillary Clinton reacts, responds and decides at a time when her own political future is at stake, what DISASTROUS decisions will she make and sanction if she ever becomes occupier of The Whitehouse?

AMERICA!

I love your country.

I have visited it many times.

I love your people.

I love, appreciate and understand the constitution on which your fantastic country is based.

I embrace it in my own life and not just as some romantic notion.

I believe in freedom, real freedom.

Your country is being scared to death by sections of your media.

MRS HILLARY CLINTON IS TRYING TO SCARE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.

Don't succumb to that fear.

You are braver than that.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES MORE.

YOUR COUNTRY DESERVES THE OUSTANDING NOMINEE THAT IS SENATOR BARACK OBAMA.

YOU'RE LUCKY TO HAVE HIM.

EMBRACE HIM AS A NATION, SIT BACK AND WATCH YOUR COUNTRY FLY.

your truly

j.dreczkowski@hotmail.co.uk

Posted by: j.dreczkowski | March 9, 2008 7:04 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,
District of Columbia Independents for Citizen Control Party (DCICC)
http://www.DCIndependents.org
dennis@DCIndependents.org

Posted by: DennisDCICC | March 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

What is Mr. O suppose to do, allow Hilary to smack him all over the place without saying a thing? Do we really want a chump as a president? I think NOT. So, i'll be happy to see Mr. O defende himself against the accusations of Hilary. Hilary has gotten away with all the little dirty tricks and no one has called her out and it's time Mr. O did.

Posted by: JGibbs123 | March 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY IS A MONSTER
HILLARY IS A MONSTER
HILLARY IS A MONSTER

Its 3am and our children are sleeping, then there comes a MONSTER and it eats up our children.

If Hillary continues to play the dirty tricks against another democractic candidate, then the country will end up thinking of her. No wonder, people are laughing at her. CLEAN UP YOUR ACT HILLARY. And fire those two liars, Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn first. Obama did it, why can't you clean up your camp?

Posted by: briancraj | March 7, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, one thing that Obama has tried to keep in mind but that Hillary seems to have thrown out the window entirely is to remember that when the nomination process is over, the nominee will need to win the support of the losing candidate's voters and unite the party for the campaign against John McCain. With that in mind, there needs to be a limit on how sharp an attack either wields against the other. But Hillary seems intent on ignoring that reality.

Her 3 AM ad and her attempts to shift the campaign to being about national security is an example of her short-sightedness. If the campaign becomes one about national security, that's exactly what the Republicans want. McCain has been trying to do that all along. The Republicans have the advantage if the campaign is about national security--NOT because they actually offer anything better on national security but because they have very successfully created and perpetuated the illusion that they do, which shows up in poll after poll. It will be that much easier for them to win that issue this year with a war hero and former POW as their candidate, even though he is sold to Bush's failed Iraq policy. But if Hillary makes the campaign about who is better qualified by virtue of EXPERIENCE to be commander-in-chief, that would clearly be McCain and not her. Obama has the better opportunity to defeat McCain on this by making it about JUDGMENT rather than "experience."

And Obama is finally going to start unmasking this ILLUSION that Hillary has any more foreign policy experience than he does. Traveling to foreign countries as First Lady is not really foreign policy experience. Her campaign has done a great job selling that illusion to the voters, but I think it's about to come unravelled.

Without a doubt, Hillary will try to play the victim as Obama starts taking a more aggressive and critical stance toward her, as she did with her "shame on you" tirade. It seems she's much better at dishing it out than taking it. Hopefully the Obama campaign will be able to be aggressive yet tactful and unmask her victim games at the same time. She can't go on the attack and not expect a counter-attack. That's a double standard that just won't fly. Obama did a good job of balancing this in South Carolina. But he didn't stay after her aggressively the way she has persisted in aggressively attacking him. Hopefully his campaign has learned its lessons and will not let up this time until she is defeated and out of the race.

I know Obama does not like this kind of politics, especially within the party. But there's no way he can allow her to do it against him and not fight back. That gives her too much of an advantage, since unfortunately way too many people believe her attacks without actually checking out the facts for themselves.

But without a doubt, a very negative campaign for several more weeks or even all the way to the convention will harm the Democrats' chances in November.

Posted by: PastorGene | March 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

People associated with the slumlord, Rezko trial, are indicating that Obama may be a witness in Rezko's trial and also may be indicted. Obama supporter's cling to your wallet and aspirations.

The above must have been written by a Clitonite.

THe truth is Obama may be called as a witness for the prosecution. That is all..

Posted by: vance1 | March 7, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

The conspiracy of the US-UK media to unsit the crowned prince Obama in favour of the old queen has begun, as we can see. Who can trust the media now when they are in a dirty habit of reporting things said 'off-the records'. Sounds very like tricks pulled off by Hillary herself and her Karl Rove team. Maybe the Scotsman reporter works for her secretly..

Posted by: thisworld | March 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

GO! GO ! HILLARY, THE CHEATED AND CHEATING !

Posted by: thisworld | March 7, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The article says, Obama was "vanquished at the polls". Hilarious, Clinton picked up only a total of 4 delegates in all 4 of the states voting, 1/3 of the Texas delegates are picked at the caucuses. The official results of the caucuses have not been announced, and are not complete, and will not be announced until the state convention in June (as always). Obama is well ahead in those.
Let's see, what is your definition of "vanquished"??

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I can't take it any more! I have never participated in one of these blogs before but I must add my thoughts. Clinton has no experience of her own to speak of. She is claiming that being the wife of a govenor and a wife of a president counts as her own qualification. She claims 35 years of experience but the last time I checked-who a person sleeps with does not count as resume material. Doesn't anyone see this? She is a new senator. She has nothing of her own to tout that has been successful in politics. She is most known for a failed run at health care, standing by her cheating husband, travel gate, white water, and coining the frase "a vast right wing conspiracy" when people wanted answers. I voted for Bill but I hosnestly don't want him back. Can you imagine him wandering the halls of the white house with nothing to do??? No thanks. What treaties has she negotiated? What issues has she settled? What crises has she aborted? (Besides Paula Jones, Monica L, and on and on) The Dems are afraid to say these things, but said they will be - by the Repubs. Lets just get the BS out of the way. By the way I am a conervative Indie. I was leaning towards Huckabee - but he is out and I just am not feeling McCain. In closing, this is not the time to have a bunch of fly girls hanging around the white house, Rap and hip hop music at all times of the night and loud parties and arguments about who slept with who. For that reason along don't let the Clintons back in there. (a joke but still kind of true)

Posted by: muzic2play | March 7, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama definitely needs to counter her assertions that only she and McCain are qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

Umm, I think Hillary is mistaking and claiming her husband's experience as her own. She didn't make any military decisions as First Lady or the Sen. of New York, so what is she talking about?

Hell, McCain got captured by the enemy, I am not so sure he's the man I want leading the troops. He's a survivor, not a hero and certainly gains no points for being Commander-in-chief.

The Clintons have shown their colors and revealed just how shady and low they will go to attain power and this Presidency.

I think I am beginning to understand just why the Republicans hate them so much.

Hillary needs to run on her own merits and not try and parlay some REVISIONIST history of her time as First Lady, which seems to include her fantasies of wielding an AK-47 and taking the hill.

What Hillary lacks is authenticity and integrity.

Go Obama! Put her feet to the fire!!

Posted by: ldc_421 | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Hey, BLOGGERS, let's take this discussion
over the next important BLOG ........
***********************************************
WASHINGTONPOST.COM : FACT-CHECKER
*Taxing questions for Clinton*
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/taxing_questions_for_clinton.html
***********************************************

And, everyone who has contributed good *AND-RELEVANT*
information to this BLOG, please take the time to repost them,
with referenceable LINKS, etc, to this other blog, so that
the good investigative reporters at WASHINGTONPOST can do
their jobs more easily.

Great work, guys and gals ....

Posted by: arthurpoet | March 7, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Don't go negative...go strong. Start attacking her record...don't attack her. Look for your strengths...find her weaknesses. Don't try to fight a snake with a snake bite. Keep up the message of hope, change, faith, and 'we can do it'...My mother used to say, if you fight in the mud, you're going to get muddy too.

Posted by: alesterp | March 7, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Slyfas - Here, here! Very well explained.

thelastmanstanding...

Posted by: athomas002 | March 7, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

For me the kicker is Clinton's campaign comparing Obama to Ken Starr (the Whitewater special prosecutor) for just suggesting that she release her tax returns. My goodness. There must be something hiding in there for her to go so ballistic over the suggestion that she release her tax returns. Could it be Bills money connection to Ron Burkle or perhaps Frank Giustra and the Khazakstan deal. Don't you think we have a right to find out just what is or is not hiding there before the party nominates her? We don't want a scandal in October just in time for the general election. She went on and on about the press not vetting Obama, well now she should step up and get her tax returns out there, plus all those tens of millions of dollars to Bill's Library that came from places like Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 6, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Let the American People see your TAX RETURNS Clinton ! If you have nothing to hide - then let us see.

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

slyfas
Check this out, especially the last one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7OFLl3asg

Right, its not plagiarism, that is an academic term applied to writers who lift passages from other copyrighted material without attribution.

All of Obama's work has been oral rather than written.

The point is not plagiarism.

The point is that he is allegedly a gifted orator with something new. The idea is that he is an original, "The One", as Oprah Winfrey calls him.

Well, he is not something new. He is someting old dressed up like something new.

Definitely not an original.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

debrajd posted 6 Mar 08 @ 5:36PM

Obama's approach is to prevent the events that would require 3AM phone call in the first place. I think that's the best measure, prevention. If you would listen to his message, he says, "I want to change the mindset that gets us into these situations."

They all need to stop it with the fear tactics. The current administration will say, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. One has to realize that we weren't attacked before 9/11 either.

This was allowed to happen because our law enforcement systems didn't communicate with each other, and guess what, they still don't today. Nothing has changed in that regard. Everyone still keeps their pieces of the intelligence puzzel to themselves because they think they are all that.

Will it happen again? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, we really don't have the ability to prevent a sneak attack because the prospect on this magnitude is much too large.

Many don't even realize that this country is less safe now then it has ever been. By this I mean, that if someone were to attack the US now, we would be up a creek.

Most of our protection and or resources are being used elsewhere. What's left here is depleted, and there's no back up plan. This is what they don't tell us. Now that's scary!!!


thelastmanstanding...

Posted by: athomas002 | March 6, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

To Iowatreasures:

I hate to reply to threads posted on this website directly whether or not they contain factual or accurate information. However, I am no longer able to hold my calm due to the cynical allegation that the use of 'others' words by Barrack Obama while making an impromptu speech amounts to plagiarism. This is not only unfair but dumb.

As far as I know, plagiarism is only used in the academic context when one submits another's idea as one's own without giving credit to the original author. But for something to be plagiarism, it mush have been recorded down by someone else before. The offence is committed when a new user fails to credit the authorship of the borrowed work to the original author by simply citing his name in the footnote. This offence does not include words we hear and repeat from good speakers like clergymen, judges, lawyers, teachers and orators on a daily basis. If this were not to be so, then we would all be dragged before the courts for plagiarizing Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Spiro Agnew, Luther king etc. Even father, mother, husband, cousin, niece etc will soon be accusing one another of plagiarism for repeating what they heard over last night's dinner at a fund-raising gala the next day without the authority of the original speaker. This is preposterous to suggest!

Let's face it how many of us (or shall I say how many of our intellectuals) use words that are personally coined? Can any of the accusers point to any man on earth who uses his own 'sets of words, idioms, expressions, proverbs and phrases'? Not even the great Englsih prose writer, Shakespeare or the great story-teller Mark Twain can meet this standard. I am not sure that Senator Obama has at any time hold himself up as a man who holds the key to the repostory of knowledge or diction.

The truth is that Barack Obama is doing what each and every one of us try to do on a daily basis while we speak: this is simply to synthesize different threads of good words and phrases we have heard or read about in the past while relating it to the present situation or environment. While a speech is being delivered impromptu, that is without any prior preparation, even the best speakers tend to sprinkle their speech with lofty words heard from good speakers on similar occasions in the past.

Thus it is not only naive to allege that somebody using his friend's or teacher's words and phrases is a plagiarist but also pettish.

If Obama had used the same sets of words in any of his books without citing the author's name, then this allegation would have exposed him as a fraud. But this is not the case as all intelligent men and women know.

With the aforesaid, I hope those confused ones would learn the real meaning and significance of plagiarism and stop belabouring us with such a non-issue. I also hope that this will put pay to the misleading and reckless allegation that was merely aimed at scoring cheap political points.

Posted by: slyfas | March 6, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

For all of you who think that Rush telling people to vote for Hillary in Texas was something new, Puhleease !!! They have been asking Republicans to vote for Obama ever since the primaries began. Their reasoning was that a vote for Obama was a vote against Hillary. Republicans have had a huge role in manipulating the primaries from day one. Sometimes you have to listen to all people to hear what the other side is saying. Think about it.

Posted by: catmomtx | March 6, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Total votes cast for Clinton in Texas:
1,459,814

Total votes cast for Obama in Texas:
1,358,785

Total votes cast: 2,818,599

Total Republican vote: 253,674 (9%)
Total Republican vote for Clinton:
116,690 (46%)
Total Republican vote for Obama:
134,433 (53%)

You can look at other States, say like Wisconsin to check Republican vote and Obama won that. Oh, but when Obama wins Republican vote that means that he is able to reach over the divide and bring the two parties together, but when Republicans vote for Clinton, that's a conspiracy against Obama.

The double standards being applied to Clinton approach the outrageous at times.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

WIKKIDINSANE

I'll invite you to go to the CNN Exit Poll data on Texas:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

There you will read that 9% of the voters in the Democratic Primary in Texas were Republicans.

Of that number 46% voted for Clinton, 53% voted for Obama.

If you guys want to start an Urban Legend, pick some other subject.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line . Hillaryo got help from republicans who have been told to vote in the Texas primary by conservative talk show hosts.If it wasn't for this she would have lost. This is damaging the democratic party and I hope you guys see that the more shots and dirty tatics she uses against Obama the more damage its going to cause us. Hillary will never end up with more delegates than Obama even if she wins every state left by a 65-35 margin.

Posted by: WIKKIDINSANE | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line . Hillaryo got help from republicans who have been told to vote in the Texas primary by conservative talk show hosts.If it wasn't for this she would have lost. This is damaging the democratic party and I hope you guys see that the more shots and dirty tatics she uses against Obama the more damage its going to cause us. Hillary will never end up with more delegates than Obama even if she wins every state left by a 65-35 margin.

Posted by: WIKKIDINSANE | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line . Hillaryo got help from republicans who have been told to vote in the Texas primary by conservative talk show hosts.If it wasn't for this she would have lost. This is damaging the democratic party and I hope you guys see that the more shots and dirty tatics she uses against Obama the more damage its going to cause us. Hillary will never end up with more delegates than Obama even if she wins every state left by a 65-35 margin.

Posted by: WIKKIDINSANE | March 6, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

This NAFTA story may be good election fodder for the Ohio voters, but two treaty partners Canada and Mexico are America's two largest suppliers of oil. Re-negotiating the treaty could have unwanted consequences.

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

We (The US) have had many presidents who had little to no foreign affair experience. One of the more recent that comes to mind is Ronald Reagan (Rep 1981-1988). I think he did pretty good in this department. It's not just experience that makes it work.

It takes someone with good communication and organization skills, one who is likable, willing to listen to the point of view of others, and in addition, have the ability (and be willing) to negotiate. Obama does demontrate these traits.

Where presidential experience is a concern, none of the current candidates have it. The only presidential candidate in the history of the US (and I could be wrong) having prior experience is Grover Cleveland.

If Mccain wants to continue the policies of the current administration (and I think he does), many of us in the US (and probably other parts of the world)will go under before 2012.

If the dems play it right, it will be a landslide. This needs to stop. It's time for a serious change.

thelastmanstanding...

Posted by: athomas002 | March 6, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mul: "One thing Hillary has not done as first lady is get B slapped by a Right wing Canadian government. That is Obama's first foreign policy exp."

No, she colludes with the right-wing Canadian government to take HER campaign's words and attribute them to Obama's.

"There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. CTV president Robert Hurst declined to comment."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080306.NAFTA06/TPStory/?query=PM%27s+top+aide+set+off

Posted by: edwcorey | March 6, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

pkmc83a:

The idea is not to fall to HIllary Clinton's level but to point out what her weakensses are. That comparison needs to be drawn. He does not need to do the mean spirited stuff she has done like play around with his name, spread rumors regarding his religion etc.

More importantly, in his speeches, Obama needs to incorporate concerns of the working class so they know he is addressing them and their concerns.

I will be wrinting more on the subject tomorrow and will post it to the blog http://newpoliticos.blogspot.com perhaps we can carry out this discussion further.

Shafqat.a.khan@gmail.com

Posted by: shafqat.a.khan | March 6, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

There is a very simple fact here that everyone's ignoring: Obama's still in the lead nationally by every single measure. You cannot name one criteria by which Clinton is in the lead.

Obama's so far won the popular vote, even if you include Florida (and probably if you include Michigan too, since there are four states that haven't reported popular vote tallies yet, three of which Obama won by a wide margin).

Obama has the most delegates, whether you include the superdelegates or not.

Obama has won more states than Clinton, by a landslide.

So to recap: Obama's won more actual votes, more delegates, and more states, nationwide. Earth to Clinton: it's your right and privilege to stay in the race if you choose, but the best you can do is to minimize the margin of your loss.

Posted by: pfreibott | March 6, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the Obama camp is whining that Hillary "3 a.m." ad was "negative." God help 'em if they ever have to encounter genuine hard-hitting negativity from the Republicans. Hillary's ad was neither "negative" nor "fear mongering." For goodness sakes, the ad didn't have mushroom clouds and hooded terrorists. It didn't attack Obama personally; it didn't misrepresent his views. The ad basically asked a critical question: With all that is taking place in the world today, who do you trust to have the intricate knowledge, and experience to handle national and international crises when they arise? It is a legitimate question that needs serious thought. Remember serious thought? It is what some of us engage in instead of doe-eyed swooning over meaningless oratorical excess.

Posted by: debrajd | March 6, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Sorry you feel that way Yeswecan1.
Asking about Tony Rezko is about as fair game as asking Hillary about Hiu. Count on Republicans going into one or the other depending on which wins.

There is no "Muslim attack". The Obama people read way too much into Clinton's 60 Minutes response. She has made no issue of Obama's religion which is Christian. Her post script of "...as far as I know" to her affirmation of his Christian religion has received way too much analysis. A person's faith is personal. You can only go by what they say their faith is. Obama said he is a Christian. End of story.

And on NAFTA, Obama opened the door to that with the negligent manner in which he responded to the Canadian report. Then he compounded the error. Clintons are trained at finding the loose thread in a knitting job and pulling. That could not have happened had Obama not let it.
Republicans are Clintons on steroids, they don't bother to wait for the lose thread, they loosen the thread.

And Obama has every right to ask her anything he feels would have bearing on her ability to serve as President.

As voters, that is what we are basing our vote on. In selecting a party, which party's principles are most like my own, and in selecting a candidate from that party, which person is most likely to win and to effectuate those principles.

Now in this I disagree that Clinton is like McCain.

McCain has sold his soul to Bush. He is committed to the disastrous course in Iraq and he is committed to these wrong headed tax cuts that he voted against.

In the next 4 years, we will have Baby Boomers coming into qualify for Social Security and Medicare. A huge new federal spending catagory will open up in addition to those that currently exist and which are pushing the federal deficit this year to over $400 billion dollars.

It is insanity to wage a war and to have this huge domestic spending looming and to advocate tax cuts, especially with China and Japan holding over $1.0 trillion dollars of our debt.

How do you get the Chinese to improve worker conditions or impose standards on their exports to the US if we are dependent on them to fund 1/9 of our $9.225 trillion dollar debt?

Clinton is in no way wedded to the disastrous policies of the past 8 years.

I think this idea of morphing Clinton into Bush is basically dishonest.

Again, I am disappointed that as an Obama supporter you would not support the Democratic ticket if Obama were not at the top of it.

Regardless of my reservations about Obama, if he is the choice of the Party, then he will have my active support.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

pkmc83a......I was with you up until the point of campaigning for one of these two...I don't like Hillary's character and in my opinion she is a polarizing campaign and in a lot of ways, I don't see much difference between her, John McCain, or George Bush. Sorry...that's my opinion. Her behavior has been tastless and poor. Besides, she has already, in so many words, told America how she and McCain are much alike. To vote for her would be voting for McCain.

As for Obama, he doesn't have to stoop to such a disgusting and demeaning manner such as Hillary and her campaign...however, just as she continues to ask him about Rezkno (sp?) and the muslim attack (although she's worshiped with him in church on several occassions) and NAFTA...he has the right to ask her questions, such as the ones that I addressed above. Afterall, isn't that what you're stating ....that each candidate should be able to answer tough questions that could possibly cast some doubts on their abilities to run this country....

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Stop liars trying to connect obama with farrakhan..farrakhan had NOTHING TO DO WITH hitler absolutely NOTHING..whites,including MANY OF THEM IN THIS COUNTRY AND EUROPE bought hitler into POWER..NOT FARRAKHAN OR OBAMA.

Posted by: wathu19 | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Aw now Yeswecan1, it won't be that bad. These are two basically good and honorable people, Obama and Clinton.

We are not talking about character flaws or criminal conduct here when we talk about vetting of candidates, it is merely a matter of qualification is all.

Take Hillary. She has been brought down by several notches from just a couple of months ago. Ms. Inevitable, the coronation at the convention and all that. But it was all taken away from her by the voters in Iowa and then South Carolina.

She had put a campaign together that was to have closed shop on February 5 with the Super Tuesday races. She had no plan to be in a contested race after that date.

And you could see that she lost badly in February as she had no plan, no resources nothing on the ground to compete with.

She was tested. Would she fold her tent and go away, or could she retool her campaign, find the resources, find a message and go back out and compete. Obama is vetting her character and her ability with the kind of campaign he is running, which is an unprecedented thing.

Well, she passed the test and won Ohio and the popular vote in Texas though he got more delegates out of it.

How did she pass? She finally became Hillary Clinton and came out from under the shadow of Bill Clinton. No one wants to elect someone on the creditials that they are someone's spouse. She had to become her own person and she did that. She responded to adversity well as manifested by those wins on March 4.

Now we will see how Obama responds. Will he go into denial? Will he abandon his principles? Or will he deal with the reality of the situation, put his principles to the test, confident that they are the winning principles.

This is what I am waiting to see.

My candidate is no longer in the race. He was Joe Biden.

I have been watching these two compete now for 2 months. Neither of them have long records in public elective office. First Lady is not an elective office and it has no public responsibility attached to it.

Obama has been a US Senator for only 3 years. His work in the Illinois legislature is a good jumping off point for a career in national politics, but should not be a part of your resume, no more than how you did in elementary school should appear on you CV.

One of these two, hopefully will be the next President. Now is the time to test them and only Hillary can test Obama and only Obama can test Hillary. The longer they enage in this process the stronger the ultimate winner will be.

In the Fall, Yeswecan1, I am sure that I will probable join you in campaigning for one of these two, Hillary or Obama. I just want one of them to be the ultimate winner and to end the Error of George W. Bush.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

PKmc83a....They are "VETTING" Obama...I too want them to terribly "VET" both candidates and I want them to do it VERY thoroughly. I am sure when it's done and all the vetting have been completed, that Obama will walk away feeling that justice have been served. My question is does the the democratic party want that type or repeat from the Clinton scandals during this primary? They better make their decision quickly because commen sense tells me that when they finish vetting Clinton, we all as democrats may go somewhere to hide.

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

YesweCan1

Maybe you didn't read my multiple posts. I said go ahead, vet her all you want.

And where have I accused Obama of anything? I just said vet him too, vet him now before the Republicans get a hold of him, because you can bet they will too.

I really do not understand the Obama people thinking that they can keep stuff under wraps, if there is anything to be kept under wraps, by shutting down the primary election process early.

If Obama is the nominee, and as of now the odds look like he will win, wouldn't you rather have all of this stuff out before the voters in March and April rather than in September and October??

There is no more final verdict on a candidate than an election, so why not do it now, put it all out there against the Clinton campaign and see how it plays in the Democratic Primaries.

This is why Democrats from Howard Dean to Paul Begala to 2/3 of all Democrats have said that this process should be extended. Obama is a compelling candidate, but relatevely untested on the national electoral stage. Let us test him now before the Republicans do it.

And the same is true for Hillary in the less probable event that she is the nominee. Vet her, by all means.

But my point earlier was that Obama has made a strategic decision not to do that sort of thing. For him to change and start into Opposition Research stuff could seriously turn off a lot of his young idealistic constituents.

He has put himself in a difficult political place. But he has proposed a radical change in American politics. To birth this idea will be no less painful than birthing a child.

Nothing comes easy, particularly radical change through peaceful democratic processes. For him to do it, he has to not abandon his strategy.

Full vetting of Hillary will only confirm for those who already dislike or hate her that they should continue to hate her and it will make those who like her, come more to her defense. She is a person that 47% of the people will never like but who 53% of the people may come to like or at least tolerate.

I doubt that Obama can do anything to those numbers regardless of what he does to further vet her. So she will sustain minor damage, but he will undo the basic premise of his cause.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama's backlash is from his own doings.
The backshop canadian meeting, Rezko, empty slate of experience and more....

Now the Obama whining begins....

Kudos to the former First Lady who has been taking hits for decades. We salute your hard work to make this country a better place.

Posted by: catheywilkins | March 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

pkmc83a....well now we are asking the press and others to "VET" Hillary and have her answer the exact type of questions and there's plenty more...I have a huge list....Why are you upset? Don't you want to find out the truth about your candidate? Not just assumptions or anal attacks, the truth...Aren't you also concerned about Hillary's business connections to Walmart who have treated their employees like slaves and they had the worst healthcare insurance that an employer had to offer? Isn't that ironic being that Hillary wants EVERYONE to have healthcare? Sounds a bit contradictory, doesn't it? Don't you want those many unanswered questions about Whitewater...which just this morning, MSNBC stated that they still have many unaswered questions. So when you throw out accusations that doesn't have any validity....how about aswering some real questions about your candidate, instead of getting tick off and hostile..

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

shafqat.a.khan
You have an interesting post and have really put your finger on a weak spot in the Obama strategy.

But you miss the point of the whole Obama Movement. The Campaign has not followed the strategy you suggest because the candidate himself does not want to. This is the "old politics" of personal destruction against he has railed since he stepped on to the national scene as key note speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

For Obama to fight Clinton with Clintonian politics destroys the raison d etre of his whole campaign. He wants to prove that you can win the Presidency by appealing to the better nature of people, to their angelic side. At that level, we all have something in common and on that basis Obama believes that he can get the Reds to come together with the Blues and we can all come together.

For Obama to do unto Clinton as she has done unto him is to admit defeat. It is to surrender. Why vote for Obama, Clinton Lite, when you can have the real thing, a real Clinton??

I think Obama, in order not to self immolate the purpose of his movement, will not resort to politics as usual in order to beat back the Clinton advance.

It is a gamble and a roll of the dice. He has said that he intends to change politics as we know it. Well, now is the time to do that by defeating the best practitioners of politics as we know it, Hillary Clinton and her team. He will have to defeat her on his terms, not on hers.

If he gives in, if he blinks, then he will have shown poor character, he will have shown that he does not have the courage of his convictions and he will have defeated the premise of his candidacy.

And did Clinton put him in this position on purpose?? Of course she did. It is called "VETTING HIM". Test his sincerity of purpose and his willingness to walk the walk if he is going to talk the talk of coming together.

The comming days will show. If he goes on the attack with Clinton, he destroys his campaign. If he maintains the course he is on, then we will see if he has the courage to rise or fall on the principles upon which he has grounded his campaign.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Hillary Clinton supporters only providing assumptions and accusations. Where are the specifics on the charges that you throw out for Obama? Could you point me to some documented sources? There are lots of literature, i.e. books, websites, journals, on Whitewater, etc..for Hillary...

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

pkmca83a....quit it with the spin...okay...

Hillary did not disclose her filings I.R.S. tax documents for 2005-2006...what she disclosed was a senate disclosure which does not contain the detailed information i.e., where and how she and Bill made their man and who and where they got their money from. The senate disclosure is not detailed at all and does not provide the specifics which

American people have the right to know if she wishes to be President of the U.S. We also have a right to obtain this thoroughly information prior to choosing her as a nominee. Therefore she needs to release the Governmental I.R.S. documents...

In addition, she also needs to release the 1,000 page document which thoroughly shows exactly what she has done since she during the time that she was the President's wife. She blamed the Bush Administration during the debate. However, the very next day, the Bush administration and other bipartisan folks stated that she nor her campaign had even requested the release of those documents....She is a liar...

If she's going to use those eight years as experience, then she needs to let the American people take a thoroughly look at those documents to determine exactly what type of experience she has. Common sense...What does she have hide.

Its interesting that her supporters seem to be "duped" into oblivion or outspace....

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

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

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

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

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

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

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

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

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

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno6 | March 6, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

1.) Has she revealed her family's financials
prior to the primaries? ....

[x ] YES
[ ] NO
Her family is not running for president. She is and has filed her personal financial data in the US Senate. If you want to look at her latest filing for 2006, its at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf
To view her 2005 report, go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2005/c001041.pdf

She has said that she will publish her 2007 financial information by April 15.

2.) Has she revealed her records of her much touted "exerience" prior to the primaries?

[x ] YES
[ ] NO
Go to:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/

If you just want to see if I can use the internet too Arthur, well, yes I can and I even know how to cut and paste as well.

In searching the net with regard to the issues that you raise, I find much of it in right wing web sites, all of the distortions and the phoney stuff which you and I suppose your campaign will try to sell as true.

And just so the record is straight. I didn't object to your statement of VET the LADY, and I am sure that you do not consider her a lady, but I have invited who ever wants to further vet her to go ahead. You won't find anything that hasn't been looked at already a thousand times.

Let's see there are the cattle futures
The Rose billing records
Whitewater

All of that has been done already and if Obama can pay Ken Starr enough money I supposed he can put enough water on that dry dust to turn up mud and throw it on her.

Go ahead.

And if the campaign gets all muddied up, don't be crying foul with that mudball in your hand.

She just asked a simple question, who do you want answering the phone at the White Huose. She never said he was not qualified, that is a voter decision and if the voters are alright with Obama answering and managing a crisis, then that's the answer.

If Obama is offended by the question, then he has mighty thin skin. In the Fall, the Republicans will not only ask that question but they will leave no doubt about their answer.

We are not trying to elect a Pope here, just a President of the United States.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

While Barak Obama's performance to date has been impressive, two consistent weaknesses have persisted since the Iowa caucuses. With such quick success in creating a movement, perhaps it is natural to get caught up in one's own rhetoric and not make a dispassionate evaluation of the weaknesses. Secondly, the campaign now needs to shift gears from being a movement only to a campaign to win which in essence requires Mr. Obama to dismantle the Clinton myth of experience and performance.

As Maureen Dowd has so well articulated in her column in the New York Times, to win the campaign, there is a need to 'slay the dragon'; i.e. attack the Clintons' lack of performance in specific areas such as Social Security, Healthcare, loss of Congress by the Democrats under Clinton's watch. It must be remembered that movements alone do not win elections; the status quo needs to be brought down at the same time as one gives a message of hope and a new beginning.

The campaign has shown a surprising inability to see and address the weak spots which may well have resulted in the losses in large states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. If not addressed going forward, this will turn out to be Obama's Achilee's heel. While we harp on the message of change, we should be able to change our strategy and tactics in view of what has emerged since people started going to the polls in January. Contrarily, our opponent, Hillary Clinton, has been adept at changing her strategy and tactics whenever circumstances have warranted. It may help us to take a page from her book. Sometimes, recognizing the opponent's strength and learning from it may be the best thing to do.

Here are a few thoughts to identify the weak points and the necessary, albeit slight, modification required in campaign strategy to address it.

A recognition of the failings would help. Firstly, two parts of the electorate are not responding to Obama as well as one would hope and require; these are working class folks (amongst whites and hispanics) and senior citizens. There is no need to surrender either of these groups to Clinton. Inroads need to be made within the Hispanic community, white working class women, teachers and senior citizens. We touch on this point later.

Last but not least the campaign must take to the airwaves and point out these flaws; a particular tactical advantage given Obama's financial strength going forward. The much maligned negative campaigning always works if done right. The states of Ohio, Texas, Maryland and Pennsylvania offer great opportunity to dismantle the myth of Hillary's supposed experience. Three cogent points can be made: 1) during the Clinton presidency, Hillary was given one major task; i.e. to come up with a health care plan. She bungled it and made no progress despite Democrats having control of Congress, lost governorships and many state legislatures and local governments, a loss from which iot took 12 years to recover 2) it is during the Clinton presidency that the Democrats became a minority party; a specter likely to repeat itself if Hillary wins; 3) no progress was made on Social security. Even now all Hillary offers is a bipartisan commission; a perfect hedge.

As mentioned earlier, Obama has been unable motivate men and women from the working class, particularly in white and Hispanic areas. Other than blacks, he has consistently lost in areas heavily populated by the working class. This became evident in Iowa (despite an otherwise impressive win) and New Hampshire, yet the campaign seems to have stayed oblivious to this weak spot and did not alter its campaigning style. He is never seen visiting a factory, a shopping mall, a Walmart, a diner, a coffee shop or a school. Although Obama has specific economic plans, he does not address the economic concerns of this class in any meaningful way during his speeches. Two states on super Tuesday , New Jersey and Massachusetts, could have been won if he had campaigned in areas like Camden and Edison (NJ) and Vooster (Mass). Hillary, on the other hand has proved to be very nimble: she immediately adopted the 'change' message after losing Iowa which along with her support in the working class women led to her narrow victory in New Hampshire. When the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama, she went straight to the culinary workers and campaigned amongst the workers making the union leadership's endorsement ineffective. Obama needs to do the same if not more.

There is no need to surrender the older generation or the white women to Hillary. The issue of Social Security needs to be hammered in.

Posted by: shafqat.a.khan | March 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

good job, YesweCan1, thank you,

and on this same topic ..
here's a comment I just posted on
today's WASHINGTONPOST article ...
*Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621_Comments.html

#################

You know, I do believe it is entirely appropriate,
and in fact, imperative, that we all investigate and
report on the efficiency, or inefficiency, as the
case may be, of HRC's management skills as exemplified
by her failing to running a smooth organized cohesive team.

I would suggest that TEAM BUILDING is core to the
job requirements of COMMANDER IN CHIEF, no?

I mean, as we all know, she has not made sure that
her records of her "experience" in the Whitehouse
have been made public prior to the primaries.

And, therefore, since we have very little other examples
of her ability to run a large organization, save for the
past scant handful of years as Senator ... I wonder
how big her staff was for that? Or how big was her
staff for the Senata campaign? And how efficient was
her Senate campaign staff run? I wonder if there are
any war stories from that "work experience." I mean,
one should give full disclosure for all of one's work
experience for any job, right? I mean, any Human Resources
Executive would have to agree.

* VET THE LADY *

But, you know, here's my specific question, for
Peter Baker and Anne E. Kornblut, since you have
done such a fine job of investigative reporting,
thus far ....

Why the loyalty to Mark Penn? When NO ONE
on the staff likes him ... lol ... I think
any blind man can see that if THE LADY could
have fired him, she would have ... but she
can't ... but she should ... right?

Hmmmm ....

And this begs the question, why can't she ?

You know, all of this does make one wonder
at the hidden story, eh?

Now, I am sure there are good valid strategic
answers to these questions, but you do know how
the mind works when there has been no
transparency about the LADY'S FINANCIALS.

It just makes everything suspicious.

And ... this is what really concerns me ....
if there were decisions about staffing
that controlled her ability to do what is
right, well then, do you all really want
that kind of political machine running our
government ... and making decisions at 3am?
... or 3 PM, for that matter .... lol ....

Really folks ... the writing is on the wall,
... for those who have eyes to see.

Arthur,

~ YES WE CAN ... see the truth ~

Posted by: arthurpoet | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Have any of Hillary's Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD, what's your middle name? And just what is your obsession with Obama's middle name? You wouldn't be fear mongering now, would you?

Posted by: andrewgerst | March 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

To all of my fellow bloggers, I have been doing a little digging and ran into a particular website with some really disturbing questions of which I have copied, and pasted from www.mydd.com. This websites presents some very serious and interesting questions about Hillary being vetted, and the fact that she and her camp continues to claim that Obama isn't vetted enough and that their aggressive attacks are the very attacks that the Republicans will use against him. In addition, they have stated that there are questions about his dealings with Rezno (sp?) that poses some questions. Well after reading this site, I have listed some of those very important questions regarding Hillary and Bill in which the American people have a right to know the TRUE answers. In addition, the democratic party (especially a life long democrat as myself who actually voted for Bill both times) really want the media to do their job and determine on a fair base if both parties are fully vetted and hold them accountable to answering very important questions that all voters need to know. Specifically if these questions could hold a conflict of Interest in a Hillary's Presidential position. I am posing these questions to you, as the concerned voters of whom I am sure are intelligent enough to determine the truth from accusations and to think outside of the box when we chose our Democratic nominee who is going to go up against John McCain and the Republicans. I have copied and pasted the following:

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

So has Hillary really been vetted? Shouldn't she be fully vetted on these stories and others for no other reason than as a public service to the Democratic Party? (The same logic Camp Clinton continually throws out for its "vetting" of Obama.)
Shouldn't the press be asking her about these stories and their potential impact on the race, should she garner the nomination? Shouldn't Democratic superdelegates take into account these items that may present themselves in "full bloom" during a race versus John McCain in the Fall?
Is $150,000 (since returned) from Tony Rezko more important than hundreds of millions of dollars in secret transactions?
I think for the sake of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton needs to be fully vetted.
I am sorry. I am not taking her or her surrogates at their word that there are "no surprises" and that she has been "fully vetted."
The facts are, she has not. Certainly not to the extent she will be on these stories -- and more -- in a general election versus John McCain.
Let the "vetting" begin.


Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Ahh, guess again, Mr. pkmc83a ...

First, I gave my name, I am no anonymous
poster, like you obviously are.

And, as much as you'ld like to dismiss
my claim to be doing this, free of charge,
I am, in fact, doing this free-of-charge.

Because I care about things like,
HONOR, INTEGRITY, and RESPECT ...

Don't you, Mr. anonymous-pkmc83a?

Now, the honesty of my spirit, I believe,
is evident in my words and ideas, and
the principles of which I am propounding.

Or are you suggesting that ...
HONOR, INTEGRITY, and RESPECT, do not
matter, whomever the source is?

Hmmm ...

You see, even if I were paid, which I
am not, the truth is still self-evident,
these questions I am raising are STILL
the heart of the matter, THEY ARE ALL
THAT MATTER. So, let's discuss what
matters, shall we?

Now, you suggest that Rove, Bush & Co.
have VETTED the family ... Ahh, I guess
you and your friend, "THINKER" have been
living in a TIME-CAPSULE, and apparently,
with TUNNEL-VISION, because that was
years ago, PRIOR to her alleged
"experience", and I dont think they
VETTED THE LADY, I would suggest that
they VETTED THE MAN, or do you suggest
that the two are one in the same.

Hmmm ... your comment raises some rather
curious, and concerning *other* questions ...

Who is running for President here?

Are you suggesting that the "BILLARY" name
is appropo?

Hmmm ... I do now wonder.

But, let us proceed to the HEART of the
matter ...

As I said last night, and let me repeat this
calmly, since I was admittedly a bit disgusted
last evening, but I am sure you can all appreciate
my mood and candor, given all that we have seen
these past weeks from your friend, THE LADY ...
someone whom I have genuinely admired, up until
her actions this last month. (I was even a fan
of her husband, with some questions, no doubt,
but I really didn't care about his personal
affairs, just some of his executive decisions,
you know, like mass pardons of his friends,
nothing worth mentioning here, since HE and
HIS actions were VETTED by ROVE/BUSH, as you
said ... oh, wait, that came after, oh, never
mind, let's move on to THE LADY. You've got
me all flustered (*NOT*) with your brilliant
spinning (*NOT*) that I almost forgot
(*NOT-EVEN-CLOSE*) the point I have been
trying to make ... lol ...

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

Okay, now, it really is two very simple
questions, Mr. pkmc83a, whomever you are,
and whomever you work for, and they are
simple YES or NO questions. Please keep
your answers to within the parameters of
the question, as any 8 year old is well
capable of doing ....

Here, I'll make it easy on you, just Cut&Paste
my questions into your reply, and put an X in
the appropriate place ...

(You do know how to cut&paste, dont you? If you
don't know how to cut&paste, I am sure your
cerebral friend "THINKER" can help you ... lol.)

---------------------------------------------------
1.) Has she revealed her family's financials
prior to the primaries? ....

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

2.) Has she revealed her records of her much
touted "exerience" prior to the primaries?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO
---------------------------------------------------

Hmmm ....

Now, if you or any of your other cohorts who
work for THE LADY have anything to say other
than to answer these two questions, with
either a YES or NO (ie, putting an X in the
appropriate BOX,) .... then we all know who
is trying to DIVERT ATTENTION from what we
ALL KNOW REALLY MATTERS, and who is speaking
the truth.

I will leave it to the well intentioned,
intelligent and perceptive readers of this
fine blog to determine the efficacy of our words.

************************************************
* FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EYES TO SEE, LET THEM SEE *

* That came from some bible book, I believe,
but please do correct me if I am wrong. I wouldn't
want anyone to claim I was plagiarizing, you do
know what "plagiarizing" means ... You know,
I think you and your friend, THE LADY, might
not know the exact meaning of the word, here's
a definition of the word, i have cut&paste it,
from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary,
here's the link, since I wouldn't want anyone
to think I was plagiarizing the wonderful
Merriam-Webster online service without
atttributing source ...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing

************************************************
*** PLAGIARIZE ***

(A)
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as
one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

(B)
to commit literary theft :

(C)
present as new and original an idea or product
derived from an existing source
************************************************

Now, let's review ...
(A)
You know, I really don't think the good Sen.Obama
was trying to "pass off as his own" other people's
ideas or words, I think he was making a speech.
I mean, when REGAN said "Make my day", lol, did
he stop and say, "Hey Folks, that line came from
DIRTY HARRY, I didn't write it .. you know."

(B)
And, I dont think the good Sen.Obama was committing
any "literary theft" ... this was a speech, right?

(C)
And lastly, I dont think the good Sen.Obama was trying
to suggest that these words of wisdom were new, and
whenever asked, I do believe he gave fair credit.

Yeah, anyway ... you guys are really making a mokery
of the Democratic Party ... and the world is watching.

You are fooling no one, except the ignorant.


here's the YES/NO pop quiz, again, just in case
you forgot to respond above ...
---------------------------------------------------
1.) Has she revealed her family's financials
prior to the primaries? ....

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

2.) Has she revealed her records of her much
touted "exerience" prior to the primaries?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO
---------------------------------------------------

Either answer these, Sir, or you are a man without
Honor, Integrity, and Respect.

Respectfully,

Arthur Levine,

~ YES WE CAN ... see the truth ~

Posted by: arthurpoet | March 6, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

We got Bushed in 2000 because Al Gore ran away from Clinton. Clinton left office with 60% approval, but Gore chose to ignore the economic record of the Administration in which he served rather than run on it and he lost.

Don't pin the Age of Bush on Clinton. Bush was the anti-Clinton and Gore, had he run on the good will that Clinton had developed might even have won his home State of Tennessee, or maybe even Arkansas so that Florida wouldn't have been needed.

The 2004 debacle can be laid at the feet of Obama Endorser, John Kerry. You can't win the Presidency by ceding the South, in total to the other side. Kerry did this. His strategy was to play for a Straight Flush. He had only one way to win, that was to win Ohio. This left Bush with many choices to get the electoral college vote needed.

Lets face it, we love Bill and Clinton politics for one reason, they are the only ones who have known how to beat Republicans in the past 35 years.

How brilliant that now that we have one of them at bat, we want to send her to the club house early and put a rookie up to bat.

Not smart baseball.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to the Clintons, though I still love Bill, we have had 8 years of Bush. Hillary/Billiary or what you want to call them, cannot win in November. There are too divisive. Shall we hand the country over to the Republicans again? Time for Obama!

Posted by: w4npx2 | March 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Boy all of those failures to predict the future.

Well, Obama is the Prophet. That's his thing to be able to predict the future.

Hillary is more about dealing with today.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

HIllary claims all this foreign Policy experience - primary the Irish agreement and Bosnia -
What about failing to understand the significance of Osama Bin ladin
- failing to appreciate the significance of the first world trade center bombing
- failing to take advantage of 10 or more opportunities to capture or kill Osama
- failure to see the embassy bombing coming and failure to have a strong response
- failure to prepare the American people for the coming battle with Islamic radicals
- failure see the 2nd world trade center coming and failure to adequately warn Bush administration
- failure in Somalia
- failure in Haiti
- failure in NOrth Korea
- bungling of relationship with China leading to reduction in US influence and the ultimate loss of US jobs
- Evan Gonzalez - the cuban boy repatriated
- and on and on

If HIllary wants to claim victories she should be put on the carpet over the serious mistakes.

If that was not all, let us not forget the great success with home grown terrorism = Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Oklahoma bombing.

The Clinton adminstration was all talk and no real constructive action and Hillary is getting away with murder on the subject of experience, especially foreign policy experience.

The world is a scarier place with the prospect of her in office, which I think will be McCain's biggest argument against her. The Republicans are already gleeful at the prospect of running against her, her fantasy image will be outed for the big fantasy it is.

Democrats again steal defeat out of the jaws of victory

Posted by: nclwtk | March 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Bad Hillery. Child killer.

Votes for military authorization bills that have purchase of cluster bombs in them.

Its sort of the same logic of "why fire engines are red" The logic goes like this:

Because they've got 8 wheels and 4 people on them
8 + 4 = 12
There are 12 inches in a foot
One foot is a ruler
There was a ruler named Queen Elizabeth
A ship named Queen Elizabeth sails the seas
In the seas are fish
On the fish are fins
The Fins fought the Russians
And Russians are red.
This 'joke' is somewhat of a family tradition. (If by family tradition I mean I was taught by a member of my family (a cousin) when I was about 10 and since then my mom has pestered me every 6 months or so to recite it back to her.)

Why are fire engines red?

Because they've got 8 wheels and 4 people on them
8 + 4 = 12
There are 12 inches in a foot
One foot is a ruler
There was a ruler named Queen Elizabeth
A ship named Queen Elizabeth sails the seas
In the seas are fish
On the fish are fins
The Fins fought the Russians
And Russians are red.
And that's why fire engines are red. Because they're always rushin'

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia are funding the Clintons. That's why the "Nasty on Day One" is not releasing the tax returns.

For $31 millions Clintons have sold this country's prestige to the Dictator of Kazakhstan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton's public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Posted by: tchanta | March 6, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Hillary voted in favor of clusterbombs. She gets more money from the War industry than any one in the Senate, Democrat or Republican. She cannot go against their interests. 40% of the casualties from cluster bombs are CHILDREN!

It takes more than a village to raise a child. They need to be protected from Cluster Bombs too!

Posted by: Togeika | March 6, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Well now I know that the Obama people have far too much money than they know what to do with it if they have hired this arthurpoet fellow to monitor this log.

He seems a bit hysterical. Are the wheels starting to loosen on the Obama bandwagon.

You want to "VET THE LADY"? What a joke. Hillary and her whole family have been vetted by the professionals -- Rove, Bush & Co. Do you think that the amateurish Obama Bunch can mark her up? You're out of your league pal and in way over your head.

Obama's past indicates that he does better by using a strict to the letter interpretation of party rules to eliminate opposition, like he did in Illinois to eliminate all Democratic Party Opposition.

This is the game he is playing in this primary season. Running up "states won" and "delegates allocated" as a means to generate momentum to force Clinton from the race before the race is done.

This week he will win Mississippi and Wyoming. WOW! He will sell that as a blunting of Clinton's Ohio win. Now tell me, who in their right mind thinks that Mississippi or Wyoming will be in the Democratic column come November?? That Mississippi will be decisive in determining whether a Democrat returns to the White House?

But this is what Obama is selling and the Press is buying it.

Here's a simple fact. Clinton is more aligned with the core Democratic constituencies in the key States needed for victory in November than is Obama.

But then, this is not Obama's path to victory. His argument is that his candidacy is transformative. That he can remake the electoral map so that States which were before Red will become Blue and all of the Blue States will remain Blue. Why? Because he will attract in voters in Red States who have not been involved before and will turn the tide so that the electoral map of 2008 will look like it did in 1980 when Reagan won.

This is the Obama case. A US Senator 3 years into his first term will transform America and for this we should toss under the bus the candidate who has the support of traditional Democratic voters, save the African American vote which has been cornered by Obama.

So VET HER. That will be the rallying cry? You say it with the same vigor as the executioner in Brave Heart said "RACK HIM". Well, do it!! She won't snap or break. Haven't you people learned that the more you knock her down, the stronger she comes back to her feet?

And by engaging in this stuff with tax returns and logs of her coming and going while in the White House, you will further shrink yourself down to manageable proportions.

When Obama is reciting political poetry, he is like the Wizard of Oz. But when he gets down to doing this sort of political hatchet work, he is more like the little man behind the curtain.

Hillary has been under the Republican hatchet, that is why she is so strong. Obama's butter knife will be a joke.

You will look silly doing this Obamaites, so go ahead have at it.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 6, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Mr.Anonomous-Thinker .. ..

First, my name is Arthur, what's yours?

You are obviously new to online forums, because
people NEVER respect Anonomous posters, kinda
makes people wonder who you are, and what you're
hiding ... what are you hiding, hmmm, I wonder?

Let me educate you a little bit about the online
world of BLOGGERS, and why OBAMA has generated
such a massive online support, it is because we
have been treated with honor and respect, and we
know what it looks like ... and we definitely
know what it DOES NOT LOOK LIKE.

If you yourself, were actually a man of honor
and truth, you would have the nerve and HONOR
to actually use your real name. My real name
is Arthur Levine, what's yours?

Who are you?

Huh?

For the record, I work for NO ONE on either
campaign, I am just a born and bred citizen
of the USoA. Just someone who cares about
things like HONOR , INTEGRITY and RESPECT.

You know, that which forges the WELL-BEING
of our nation ... my nation.


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

Second, regarding this NAFTA-LIE, check out
this video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJG1r4SzsHI

... and while you're at it, let everyone on your
staff who work for THE LADY, check it out, too,
and then you all should evaluate your allegiances.

I would ... but then, I'm a thinker, you know,
like Socrates ....

And then, after you've "thought-a-bit" ...
... then try selling that NAFTA-LIE-CRAP to
people who dont think ... eh?

Mr.Anonomous-Thinker .... i dare say, you
are not a true thinker, are you?

Actually, I would suggest, you are a SPIN DOCTOR
of the worst kind ... dont you even care about
HONOR, INTEGRITY and RESPECT. .... Socrates would
turn over in his grave at your high school childish
antics .... who do you think you're fooling?

Clearly, you aint fooling anyone who actually THINKS!

-----------

Third, my question had to with VETTING THE LADY, which
you seem to have suspiciously and deftly (*not*) lol,
avoided even addressing ONCE!!!!

You know, in the BLOGGING WORLD, those tactics really
are quite laughable. I mean, you can pull it off on
TV, but not here .... get with the program, will ya?

Before you say ANOTHER SINGLE THING, either answer
these TWO QUESTIONS ... or nothing you ever say will
have any substance with me, or ANYONE who has read
this blog ...

1.) HAS SHE REVEALED HER FAMILY's FINANCIALS
PRIOR TO THE PRIMARIES? ....

2.) HAS SHE REVEALED HER RECORDS OF HER MUCH
TOUTED "EXERIENCE" PRIOR TO THE PRIMARIES?

No, No, don't bother, cause we all know the
answer, don't we ... it's NOPE!!!!!

NADA ... and she actually thinks this is acceptable???

Well, folks, it aint acceptable ....

Like I said ... VET THE LADY ....

VET THE LADY
VET THE LADY
VET THE LADY

and if you dont do this, then you've got no
business, and she's got no business, even being
in this business ...

GOT IT ..... Mr.Anonomous-Thinker ....

As they say ....
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"

We're not fools, and the world is watching
these high school antics ... get with the
program, your LADY has demonstrated complete
and utter lack of honor, and you know it,
and you're trying divert attention.

Stop it. Just stop it. It is tiresome, and it
is wrong of you, and it is bad for our Republic.

********* VET THE LADY *********

-----------

Fourth,

On one day, she is respectful, and within 48 hours,
she is YELLING "SHAME ON YOU!!!" and calling his
leaflet a lie ... labeling him KARL ROVE, and her
campaign labeling his methods NAZI-like ...

Please, now aint that the pot calling the
kettle black, pardon the pun,

and for the record, that was the day she lost my respect,

cause ... you know, i'm a "THINKER" and all that JAZZ.

And us thinkers, well, we can THINK for ourselves, can you?

Yeah ... I lost respect for her when she resorted to lies
and ugly-politic-tricks-as-usual, and here I thought she
was better-thanthat, a LADY of CLASS and STYLE,

or, as the genious JACK puts it "AS GOOD AS IT GETS"

... lol ... well, folks, I sincerely HOPE NOT, cause if
she's as GOOD AS IT GETS, then we're in for some serious,
and i mean SERIOUS problems in this world ...

but no folks, she has proven that she aint got CALSS or STYLE,

she has proven she is just like the rest of the GOOD OL' BOYS,

And you, Mr.Anonomous-Thinker, would you please stop
contributing to these ugly political games, and why dont
you ... *** YOU *** demonstrate that you are better
than this ugliness, admit that she has FAILED to
demonstrate true statesmanship, and that the
good Sen. Obama has demonstrated true statesmanship...

No, probably not, cause they pay you too well, huh?

lol .... yeah, you are pretty transparent, you know ...

----------

Fifth ... regarding the Rezko affair .....

Yeah, I believe I have already discussed this ???

But, my dear Mr.Anonomous-NOT-Thinker, since you
have obviously missed it, because, you were, I
guess, too busy "THINKING" about what SPIN to use,
I will repeat myself, and dont worry, I will try
to keep it in terms that are easy for your
"THINKING" mind to grasp ... !

WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES. GOT IT ????

Obama has admitted it was a "boneheaded move" ....
he made a mistake, he owned it .... and that is
what I expect of leaders, to ADMIT IT when they
make a mistakes .... done ...


You know, like Mr.BUSH has always admitted when he
has made mistakes ... lol ... NOT????

Oh, Wait, yeah, he has not EVER admitted to making
a mitake, hmmmm,

maybe that's who THE LADY is taking her lessons
from .... lol .... yeah, that's who we want as
our COMMANDER IN CHIEF, someone who WILL NEVER
ADMIT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG ... lol .....

I'm sorry, Mr.Anonomous-NOT-Thinker, I dont mean
to be ridiculing you so much, but this is just
too easy and I am just too tired of your spin
doctors getting away with such infantile games.

Again, WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES.

Can THE LADY admit hers? YES or NO???

No, Mr.Anonomous-Thinker, you dont need to answer
that one either, cause we all know the answer.

----------

Sixth, I watched your VIDEO about Obama's use of
words, and his "borrowing" rhetoric, etc ...

Okay, come on now, Mr.Anonomous-Thinker, since your
such a cerebral man, tell me, what is wrong with using
the words of our age, and words of ancient lore,
ancient teachings, modern day teachings,

... words that are true and wise?

If someone uses phrases from THE BIBLE? Should they stop,
mid-sentence, and provide a footnote?

I dare say, if Obama was ever stopped to ask where
he has gotten some line or phrase, he would hardly
deny the source .... please ... PLEASE !!! ....

You guys are freakin' reaching for straws here ...

.... GIVE IT UP .... !!!!

Just stop with these glaring acts of desperation.

HE quotes and emulates brilliant wisdom and you
dare suggest that he lacks honor or brilliance
for this ... you must joking ....

Like, you know,

"FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EYES TO SEE, LET THEM SEE" ....

"FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EARS TO LISTEN, LET THEM LISTEN"

The HOPI Prophecy ...

words from some film, or seminal leader, or teacher
that has helped forge an age, is this wrong ? ...

You MUST be kidding me.

And at what point does this and these words, phrases,
lessons, teachings, proverbs, become a part of the
public domain ... huh?

Both your, and THE LADY's, attack on this topic
is a joke ... Obama is a wise man, who has the
wisdom to listen, and the wisdom to speak, these
wise words ... and you fault him for this .... ????

And you fault him and his character for being molded
and influenced by, and emulating, the great leaders of
our past .... this is truly laughable in the extreme,

well, if it weren't so sad, it would be laugagble,

Tell me, my ever so wise Anonomous-Thinker, friend,
would you truly want him to be emulating MR.BUSH
and KARL ROVE, as your LADY friend apparently chooses
to do ... lol ...

Who are you trying to fool?

Listen ...
We've all been molded and forged by the words
and culture and wisdom of the ages, does this
make them any less true? Or does this make the
man who can listen with profound wisdom and
speak what needs to be spoken, any less than
an honorable wise leader ... I would suggest
that we need more of this in our world ....

We would all do well to follow the noble example
that the good Sen. Obama has set ... an example
that ALL of our leaders would do well to follow,
an example of listening to the wisdom of those around
them, and the example of NOT resorting to the use
of ugly-political-tricks to tear him down ....

I tire of you and people like you, who have not
the brains to think, nor the wisdom to listen,
... much less, the honor to DO WHAT IS RIGHT ...

you, who clearly care not ....
... about HONOR, INTEGRITY, and RESPECT.

I repeat, and put it to you ALL ....

... VET THE LADY ...

or you have NO HONOR, INTEGRITY or RESPECT ....

Anything less, is a lie of the most profound
and dire nature. Nothing else means anything.

All of your words are a lie, without this.

... VET THE LADY ...

and if she herself HAS no HONOR-INTEGRITY-RESPECT
then hers is NO WARRIOR SPIRIT, for this and these
are the very foundation upon which a true warrior's
heart is born,

without them, there is no heart,

and it is foolish in the highest degree to
trust a leader who has no heart ...

how could they possibly ever know what to do
at 3am or 3pm .... without HEART ..

HEART is the steel of a warrior's spirit,

******************
YES WE CAN ... and will change this world for the better,
but only, AND ONLY *** with a path forged *BY-US-ALL*
in HONOR, INTEGRITY and RESPECT !
******************

i bid you all, peace,

Arthur,

Posted by: arthurpoet | March 6, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons know how to get rich by being friends with the right people. It's all about whom you know, not what you know. Bill doesn't have to report the gifts he receives as a spouse so White House could be for sale at the right price again. They already rented the Lincoln Bedroom before.

If you send the Clintons back to the White House for the third term, which they called it homecoming, there will be no change. White House will become the center of world entertainment again.

Posted by: dummy4peace | March 6, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse


Not true. What harmed Obama was his own dirty laundry, mistakes and lack of a resume.

She "pounced", she "leaped", she "threw the kitchen sink". What are all these cat analogies? Supposed to be subtle? They're deliberately and openly sexist. Careful not to call him black or mention his race though. Hillary used the term "knocked out" because Barack Obama said that was what he was gong to do to her. But no one seemed to notice - they were so caught up in his circus float act he was performing at that time. He pulls out her chair, he uses the word "tenacious" deliberately when "formidable" was the correct term. What total CRAP. What deflection. And the press slurp it right up. Along with their sleepy time tea and wine and cheese. Real journalism is dead. Our country is the worse for it.

David Axelrod whines that Senator Clinton has "gone negative". Hello? What are we doing, running for dog catcher? Mr. Obama tries again to defer the blame for his own big problems.

Hillary Clinton hasn't gone negative. Hillary Clinton has gone REALITY. Would Mr. Axelrod like some more cheese with that whine?

HE talked with the Canadians (or his campaign person who he is responsible for - no excuses on that please don't bother) - speaks to ability to run your office. They'd be saying that if it were reversed. Judgment problem.

HE had a relationship with Mr. Rezko. No one else. That strip of land and buying it through Rezko's wife to hide Mr. Rezko's money IS and will be an issue for John McCain. It's Mr. Obama's laundry and not Senator Clinton's ANYTHING.

HE is the person who was appointed CHAIR of the Oversight Committee on Afghanistan FOURTEEN MONTHS AGO and hasn't held one meeting. HE is the one who has USED this seat as a bragging point for months now. And now we know, he did NOTHING for OVER A YEAR!! HE said in the debate that he was "campaigning". In other words, busy with his own life. Maybe this is why he had so many "present" votes in Illinois. He wasn't really working much. In all of this Senator Clinton isn't responsible for things he didn't do. This is information important for the American people to know. On top of this, he's being PAID while being too busy with his own life to do the job he was "appointed" to. Maybe he thought it was just for show during his campaign. He was wrong. Bad judgment. And not taking responsibility is even worse judgment.

HE is the person who has come to this interview without a proper resume, without proper experience in economic matters or foreign affairs and a lot of other things aside from impersonations of MLK, JFK and Jefferson... oh and Duval - which was also poor judgment because Massachusetts is scratching their heads wondering why they elected him - he's a nincompoop.

HE is the one who thought this was going to be a cake walk because the White Haired Trolls of the old Democratic DC boys club convinced him to run without a resume. Well, we know his races in Illinois were pretty easy - two against persons who defeated themselves with scandals and the like. And the Senate race was against another black candidate with lots of crazy radical religious baggage. But did he really think this was going to be as easy as that? If he did - then he is REALLY not qualified. Because that would be underestimating the people, the job and the process.

Mr. Obama likes to dismiss questions, criticism and the press. Or to turn around any problems he has rather than dealing with them. This isn't a quality we will accept in a candidate, much less a President. We're just getting rid of a guy with these bad habits.

Mr. Obama underestimates the expectations of The People. And we have noticed.


Here is an excellent video which no one should miss.

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


Posted by: Thinker | March 5, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

tim .... she has done no such thing ...

all that she has done is squeaked by with barely
a margin through WITHHOLDING critical information
necessary for the voters to make an INFORMED decision,

she has resorted to "ugly-politics-as-usual" tricks
and diversions and mis-directions ... and relied
heavily upon her old party loyalists who have
(admirably, though naively) stood by her, in spite
of her lack of HONOR, INTEGRITY, and RESPECT ...
you know what i mean, her lack of STATESMANSHIP,

and we all know that this constituency WILL NOT beat McCain ....

come on, folks, GET REAL !!!!!

what matters to you?

Posted by: arthurpoet | March 5, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama is trying to spin the win of Sen.Clinton in Ohio and Texas as insignificant because he is still leading in delegate counts. Sure, but the rule says that a candidate must get 2025 delegates to be declared the nominee. No matter what happens nobody will get that number unless the votes of the super-delegates are counted and this is where his problem is.

Super-delegates will vote without any restriction and they will vote whom they think will be the best and strongest candidate for the general election.

Sen. Obama may have won more states and more delegates but he could not win in critical states like Florida, Ohio and Michigan.The Democratic leadership is not crazy to annoint him just because he has more pledged delegates. The crucial test will be Pennsylvania. Whoever wins in this state will surely be the nominee. Sen. Obama and his campaign knows that is why they were devastated by the victories of Sen. Clinton in Ohio and Texas.

Sen Clinton showed that she can win in big states with significant number of electoral votes that will lead to Democratic party's victory in the general election. So much so for doing the math of counting delegates.

Posted by: tim591 | March 5, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

bhatttt ... come on ....

he made a mistake with Rezko,
he admitted this,

NAFTA-gate was a MADE UP, and you know it!

and his wife aint unpatriotic, and you know it!

and his pastor aint racist, and you know it!

please, everyone, stop spreading false rumors,
and demonstrate a little honor, integrity,
and respect ....

who are you ? and what path do you walk?

Are you not men and women of honor?
... men and women of integrity?
... men and women of respect?

what moral fiber are you made of?

stop the lies ... VET THE LADY ...

VET HER FAMILY's finances ...
VET her alleged "experience" ...
do your homework !
do the job !

lest you forge an ill republic that
will never withstand the coming
challenges of this next age,

you think our enemies will believe
the lies and respect a leader who
does not demonstrate the ideals to
which we claim to esteem,

would you the greatness of our nation
be nothing but a lie?

where is the dignity in that?

VET THE LADY !!!!

Posted by: arthurpoet | March 5, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Rezko, NAFTA-gate, unpatriotic wife, and racist pastor for Obama give us a good clue of what this man is about. I am looking forward to hearing about Rezko. Obama reminds me of a Chicago style dirty politician. Unfortunate that the Democrats pushed this guy out. No American in their right mind would vote for him.

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

As a resident of Pittsburgh, I am going to be doing everything I can to help Senator Obama, because I am certain he is our only hope of defeating Senator McCain. Rush Limbaugh may be a hypocritical bigot, but I have to give him some credit for his idea to get republicans to vote for Hillary. I for one would feel like a total fool if I fell for Limbaugh's obvious trap. Fellow Pennsylvania Democrats and Independents: you have the choice of voting for positive change in Washington (Obama) or of becoming Rush Limbaugh's pawns. The choice is yours.

Posted by: Ted3 | March 5, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

You know, I am from New York, and I have
genuinely liked this lady, up until last
week.

As a man, and a born and bred member of this
great Republic who holds in the highest
of esteem, HONOR and INTEGRITY, above all else,
let's review the facts, with objective candor,
shall we:


1.)
We all know that she barely won
these states by a hair's breath.
Obama was FAST gaining, and she
pulled the same old ugly party
politic attacks in the last days,
artfully timed, to sway the ignorant.

Is this okay with you all?

It aint okay with me!


2.)
And we ALSO all know that if she had been
a human being of honor and integrity,
she would have demonstrated HONOR and
INTEGRITY, by MAKING SURE that her family's
financial records were made public,
along with, the records of her alleged
"experience" in the Whitehouse.

But she did NOT ... so, what is she hiding, huh?

Answer THAT ONE, folks, and why is this
acceptable with you all? HUH?

I'll tell you this much, it aint okay with me!

3.)
And we also ALL HAVE SEEN that Obama has
been generating the most massive grass-roots
inspired motivated mobilized organized campaign
of suppporters, *young and old*,
*Republican, Democrat, and Independent*
... that this nation has EVER SEEN ...
at least in my life time.

And, I dare suggest, we are in dire need of
this kind of spirit in this country.

Do you all want that *INSPIRED SPIRIT* within
our young and old alike to be STAMPED OUT
by the likes of this and these illnesses
that have plagued our party politics for
TOO LONG????

Well, I don't ... cause we need that renewal
of spirit in this country like we have NEVER
needed it before, because the EEC and CHINA
and INDIA aint waitin' for us, they are gonna
take the lead and we aint gonna be the great
hegemony for much longer.

And yeah, I care about my country, do you?


~~~

Now ... so ... tell me, folks, does HONOR and
INTEGRITY and TRANSPARENCY matter to you?

And is HER flavor of "experience" what you
all want as the LEADER of our great republic?

"Experience" with *WHAT?*

How to hide her records?

Obfuscation??!?!?!?

Distraction?!?!?

Misdirection?!?!?

Feigned respect and contrived anger,
she's taking her acting lessons from
her good ol' friend Jack Nicholson, eh?

And you all are buyin' it, just like the brilliant
genius Jack, an ACTOR (aka POSER/faker), we had
one of those as a president already, maybe you
all want another one? hmmm ...

Is this what you all revere and hold sacred
in a leader? The contrived image of real?

You think the military needs THAT as their leader?

Come on, folks, let's REALLY GET REAL, shall we!

You would follow THAT through a crucible of fire?

WOULD YOU ????

Do you honestly believe *THAT* is the makings of
a COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the most powerful nation
on this planet?

GET REAL, folks, but really, GET REAL ...

I aint impressed, in fact, I am wholly and utterly
disgusted in what I have witnessed these past 4
weeks, and the complete and utter ineptitude of
the journalists for exposing the unmistakable
truth of what has occurred FOR THE WORLD TO SEE
... and THEY HAVE SEEN.

And, tell me, folks, ALL OF YOU,
tell me ...

You would trust someone who has KNOWINGLY
and WILLINGLY WILLFULLY INTENTIONALLY withheld
CRITICAL information necessary for our people
to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION?

This is okay with you?

THIS ???????

Is there ONE SINGLE PERSON, or Journalist, on
this BLOG, or ANY, who wants to tell me that
HONOR and INTEGRITY don't matter to them?

You know ... BEING FORTHRIGHT ..... ?!!?!

Tell me that this doesn't matter to you,
or to your children, or to your parents?

Well, it matters to me and mine!!!

Is there ANY in this nation that does not hold
these ideals in the highest of regard. Any?

What would Jefferson, or Adams, or Lincoln, say?

Huh?

Yeah, I would also LOVE to see a female President,
but let's put HONOR and INTEGRITY, and while we're
at it, a little MUTUAL ***RESPECT*** as PARAMOUNT,
since these are the makings of true Presidential
Statesmanship.

What matters to you?

I am speaking to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU.

What do you think it will honestly take to
insure our nation's safety?

Do you not think the WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!

*** THEY ARE ALL WATCHING ***

EVERYONE IS WATCHING ! ((( both our friends and enemies )))

This is a test of the moral fiber of our nation's
true worth, and this is our ONLY CHANCE to prove
whether or not we are a force of goodness,
born of IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY,
or whether we are the hypocrites that
the terrorists say that we are.

And if we do not demonstrate IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY
in genuinely vetting ALL candidates, and FORCING
THEM to REVEAL THEIR FINANCIAL RECORDS and FORCING
THEM to reveal ANY and ALL records to substantiate
their alleged "experience" .... then there is
NO WAY we are gonna beat them in the real war
on terrorism, which CAN ONLY be won by winning
the hearts, minds and spirits of the people.

Yeah, it matters!

And yes, Obama made a few mistakes in his past.
Who amongst us hasn't? But he hasnt lied about them,
and hasn't tried to hide them, He has ADMITTED them,
forthright, and openly!! This is the kind of leader
our young (and old, alike) needs, now more than ever.
He has taken ownership for them. He has not tried
to PASS THE BUCK. He has learned and grown from his
mistakes, which is all anyone can ask.

He is human. We're ALL human.

Let's get it ALL ON THE TABLE, so the common
people of this nation (and world) can make an
INFORMED decision about who we want as our
COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

Let's see who is TRULY best "experienced"
to be our leader.

Stop playing the same old games. Just stop.

Be a person of honor, integrity, and respect.

Stop letting the lies stand unaddressed,
unexposed, unrevealed.

Do the job, folks, vet the lady, vet her family,
and let the light of truth shine within the dark
festering shadows of that which they would have
remain hidden.

Do the job, be an American, and make
our forefathers proud.

It's now or never, folks, now or never.

Arthur,

ps,
It's about time, Obama took the gloves off!


Posted by: arthurpoet | March 5, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Go Geriatric Bush 2.0 Candidate!


I mean. . .


Go Grandpa McCain!

Keepin' us in Iraq for a 100 years... 1,000 years! Yeah!

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

GO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 12:15 PM

Wow, it must have taken that solitary neuron in your vacuous skull a lot to crank out such an idiotic post.

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 5, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

She didn't call him a Moslem, that is not an issue in this election. She just raised a question. Do you want this guy who is in his 3rd year in national elective office in charge of crisis management in the White House.

It was just a question.
The people gave their answer.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The objection to negative campaigning isn't that negative campaigns point out the downside of opponents. The objection is that negative campaigns tend to degenerate into unfair, unsubstantiated, or blatantly dishonest claims. In that sense, I think the attacks that Obama makes in the article are fair game, in that they're based on evidence rather than innuendo, they're based on a fair interpretation of the facts, and they directly address whether or not she'd govern effectively. So I don't think this constitutes sinking to her level.

Posted by: davestickler | March 5, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are throwing the entire kitchen sink and mud in their back yard at Obama, with the help of the media and their Canadian friends. Why did it take the Canadian Govt so long to squash the falsehood? Not until after the March primaries? Talk about the interference of foreign governments. There should be a Congressional investigation on this and heads should roll. In the meantime the Clinton dynasty will steamroll into another 8 unconstitutional years and to the despair of a whole new generation of US voters and seniors like us who are tired of the same old corrupt machine. McCain is sitting in the cat bird seat while the Clintons eat up the young and fill their bank accounts with multi-millions. Will Hillary ever release their tax returns? Not while her campaign is crying poverty to every hard-working older white sister.

Posted by: shirleylim | March 5, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-sturdy-beggars/the-clinton-death-march_b_90009.html

"To watch Hillary Clinton's "victory" speech last night in which she extravagantly celebrated coming from 20 points ahead one month ago in Ohio was to see personified everything the Clintons are.

It's not that the speech was full of their typical pettiness (sarcasm intended) -- "No candidate in recent history Democratic or Republican has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary" -- or the pathetic warping of Obama's Yes We Can into Yes We Will. It was more a general feeling of numbness. Of being in a parallel universe where the only relevance is a news cycle.

There is nothing to celebrate in the way Clinton won last night. A ringing phone at 3AM inducing fear in voters, accusations of being a Muslim, and mocking the power of words to achieve what? Democrats are supposed to rally round because this is what's needed to defeat the myriad evils that comprise Bushism? Nope...this is what's needed by the Clintons to stay quasi-mathematically alive to distort reality another day."
And the reality is that Clinton gained nothing. Obama is still ahead in delegates and she cant beat him unless perhaps she sues someone. She has already threatened to sue prior to Iowa, Nevada, and Texas, and she likely will resort to do the same against the DNC to gain Michigan and Florida delegates where those states broke the rules and lost their delegates. She says she's a fighter the disturbing reality is that "united we stand, divided we fall" and she is willing to destroy the Democratic party to the delight of the GOP.

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

It's really sad to see the Clinton campaign realizing that the only way to win is to trash the reputation of someone who has, despite his flaws, always been known as a fundamentally decent, bright, and capable human being. And it's really gut-wrenching to see the Clintons rewarded for that behavior. If Hillary Clinton has a conscience, she sure doesn't seem to use it a whole lot.

But I'm grateful that the rewards will almost certainly just be temporary. "Meet me in Pennsylvania" is a polite way of saying that Hillary doesn't expect to win either of the contests between now and then, and her prospects don't look much better after April 22nd either. The consistent long-term trend in the race has been that, as the race has gone on and voters have seen the two candidates more and more, they've become more and more likely to support Obama. Despite the blip in the radar from small wins in states she'd chosen as most favorable for making a stand, the overall state of the race is that Obama is in far better position, and that the Clintons just lost their best chance to make up delegates.

Posted by: davestickler | March 5, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

The temptation to Clintonise Obama's message and tactics is simply to fall into entrapment on Clinton's field. He absolutely must not attempt to best them in demagoguery, no one can. He must cultivate demand for their expulsion from American political life.

Posted by: Carter_NIcholas_readily_targetable_in_Virginia | March 5, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

It is troubling, to find Axelrod and Obama beginning to speak in terms of imitation as the antidote to Clintonism. Obamism is the antidote: he can denounce by being uplifting. He can remind us that we are a better people than the Clintons think we are, that ours is a nobler business than the Clintons make it, that we believe in change because their way is intolerably degrading and morally disgusting. He absolutely must assert the illegitimacy of their conduct, but he must do so in terms of the necessity of distinguishing at least one of the major parties from the Republicans. He must take great care to restrain his professional spokesmen from Clintonite comments; and of course he must demonstrate that this is a race to define and to rescue the character of American self-government. One can only hope this message is in his mind.

Posted by: Carter_NIcholas_readily_targetable_in_Virginia | March 5, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

So Axelrod has had enough?? Well that's news. He has run a campaign that is just as down and dirty as any other campaign has run in a tight race. The only difference is that while Obama has been in the gym reciting poetry to the Obamaniacs, his campaign has been doing the dirty work.

Clinton was worked over pretty good by his campaign to paint Clinton as a race baiter for suggesting that where there is a strong African American base, Obama has an advantage. That was race baiting for which Obama said he was "disappointed" and that the statement was "unfortunate". Code words.

When everyone from MSNBC to the NYT picked up the analysis to explain Obama wins, which by the way is a very accurate reflection of the reality of Obama's 85-90% support in African American vote, that has been considered as political analysis, not a sign of racial prejudice.

And Obama's characterization of Clinton's health care plan was not as slanted?

Obama's characterization of Clinton's position on NAFTA was not slanted?

Obama's hard ball pressuring of Black elected officials, threatening them with primary opposition if they did not get in line is second only to tactics displayed by Tom "The Hammer" Delay in how he lined up Republican votes in the House.

Obama is no lamb in the woods. He has been playing hardball all along and tactically called Clinton out on it to make her unilaterally disarm so that he could savage her in an uncontested manner for a month.

Well, when Clinton took note of the flyers that Obama put out misrepresenting her position on health care and NAFTA, as he was preaching unity, she figured, hell, he is just another Republican and decided to play ball like Obama had all along.

What's hurt Obama in Ohio was of his own making. Ohio is a state that has real problems with NAFTA. Obama ran a "me too" policy to redo NAFTA so that he stayed with Clinton while his chief economic advisor is telling a Canadian consul that its just political Bravo Sierra meant to win an election. Then he became evasive and parsing when his hand was called.

This episode shows that he doesn't mind lying and disrespecting the voters of Ohio, but then he tried to cover it up. That was the killer in Ohio and probably in Pennsylvania.

She is just getting this guy's record out and people are making their judgments based on what they are seeing.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 5, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama walked away with the same amount of delegates and some...Hill walks away with only 4 after her so called Slam dunk! hahaha....Those 11 states Obama carried, he smashed her in delegates in just about every state he carried...Too bad we can't say the same for Hills so called triump last night....I guess God don't like ugly and she is a MESS! Hot MESS!! $100.00 to Obama...Keep it moving, Obama...Keep it moving...we have your back, brother!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 5, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Although Hills only won Texas by 3% (after being up by 20% one week ago) and only won Ohio by 8-9%) she only walked away for FOUR-4 delegates...Not only did Obama walked away with the same # of delegates that he walked in with (becaue he carried those large cities/counties in both Texas and Ohio). That's pretty pathetic that she portrayed herself as the BIG winner when she is no closer to the nomination than she was prior to winning those three states..What's more sad and pathetic is that she played on the fear and the intelligence of those unfortunate, poor, unemployed, rural folks in Ohio and Texas. While she netted $12 million in 2007. She grossed more than that the year before. What's more sad is that these poor and uneducated folks are voting for this rich cunning woman!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 5, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Ulworcurious

The following have been implicated in the indictment or will testify in the Rezko trial,
William Cellini
Chris Kelly
Sheldon Pekin
Joseph Aramanda
Tom Rosenberg
Steve Loren
Joseph Cari
Jacob Kiferbaum
Excuse me, I don't see Senator Obama's name on that list. Stop the rumor mill and stick to the facts.

Posted by: 367631_AJ | March 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I have donated another $100.00! Give that polarizing, divisive, bi-polar a sho nuff SMACKDOWN!!! That's right Obama, go to the closet and pull out that witch and her husband's huge sack of low down, scandalous dirty b.s. Give the public what they want...they want a FIGHT!! Give them a fight! Show them who the REAL fighter is...All that Fluff and all Hillary walked away with was 4 delegates!!! hahaha..that's a JOKE!!! Take it to her and her campaign, OBAMA....Let's do this and get it done expeditiously!!! So that we can begin the fight with the republicans... You are the MAN!!!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters... you might want to check this out

As seen on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=email

PART 1 -
Hillary! Uncensored, the unedited trailer that has been ranked #1 video in Google Top 100 in the World, will debut as a 1 hour documentary on http://www.youperview.com on November 5, 2007. Copyright T2P Media Inc. Presented by Equal Justice Foundation of America. http://www.ejfa.org

Refer to Hillary Clinton Accountability Project - http://www.hillcap.org - for link to DVD and other evidence of the frauds Hillary directed to win her senate seat
------

Posted by: 367631_AJ | March 5, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama will not get another red cent from me until shows some leadership and backbone. Hillary is being a better man than he is right now and he needs to stop being an alter boy and be a candidate.

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

utworcurious, Iowatreasures:

Poeple "close to the trial" can insinuate all they want, but that's not how criminal(or civil) cases work. The prosecution and defense have to present their respective witness lists in advance of trial. You don't just get to add people as it goes along. And, in order to get to a trial, there has to be an investigation and an indictment (which involves presenting the evidence of the investigation to a grand jury). If Obama were involved in Rezko's corruption trial, we would have known long ago that he was scheduled to be a witness. And in any event, being a witness does not implicate guilt, being a defendant does. So just keep hoping for some Rezko connection to surface, and in the meantime, I suggest reading the Bloomberg article where the sellers came out and stated that BO bought his house and land from them and Rezko's wife at or above market value.

Try as you might, that Rezko dog just won't hunt.

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

Look up the word "trash" in the dictionary, and right beside it, is a photo of Hillary Clinton.

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

I just sent the Clinton campaign some money too! Obama, when asked what specific qualifications he has to be CIC simply goes after Clinton. He has a neat way of dodging questions, but claims she's been negative on him. Apparently, some people eat up the B.S. stuff and haven't noticed he's shoveling it out faster than they can chew on it.

Posted by: rrau22 | March 5, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Where was she before her campaign began..." ?

Hillary was working in the Senate before she started to becoming more seriously focus in the campaign season. Where was Obama? Skipping out his votes on Iran because he was campaigning and too busy wanting to be a president. His appointment as chair of that subcommittee was more important than his presidential campaign. What was he hired to do as a US Senate? Running his presidential campaign? I don't think so.

and attendent even though he was a chair Nation Security

Posted by: jmaj | March 5, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

soulpainter95 raises an interesting questiong above: "Even if he were Muslim, SO WHAT???"

If Obama is secretly a Muslim, lying about that in order to gain the Presidency during a time of war with radical Muslims, I would hope that even 54 year old white women have second thoughts about that. Is there anyone out there who would vote FOR Obama if he was lying about that?

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Barb-New Carrollton MD - Here's hoping Barack wins enough to get the nomination. I am so sick of Hillary, it would be like having "Mr. Bill" right back. I wouldn't even want her running as VP. I know a lot of New Yorkers didn't want her as their senator because she's not from there & didn't think she had any business being their senator. Sadly not enough people who felt that way actually voted to make their opinion count. I know I would have - I was born in NY.

Posted by: Barbara.Johnson2 | March 5, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I can't get with those that want to continue to attack Obama because of all of this negativity and still support Hillary.

As far as Rezko is concerned, the truth is he didn't end up behind bars until the picture with Hillary and Bill and Rezko showed up together while the Clinton's were still in the whitehouse and she was smiling real big. All of a sudden, this man ends up behind bars, just like Ron Paul. You need to see the "Video Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to see."

Furthermore, it wasn't Obama and his campaign that met with the Canadian Government, it was one man with Canadian consulate in Chicago and Obama and the Canadian government said that the conversation didn't even entail NAFTA.

Some people would rather believe a lie than the truth, even when the light is glaring them in their face. HRC can kiss!!! She's shown her hand too many times and I definitely will not be supporting her in the general election. Win by any means necessary, those are tactics that I refuse to support.

Posted by: pureheartwj | March 5, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I will donate $2,000 to Obama Camp to make sure he wins. Watching Hillery was pathetic. I honstely think she exagerates her experience factor and know-how solution. She is such a divisive figure that I can't stand her sight. I am a woman and I definately would be so proud to have a woman president in such a great country which offers such a diversity. But truly I would not like to see this woman becoming a presidnet, ANY OTHER WOMAN but her.She has all of a sudden started caring for people because she needs the votes....where was she before her campaign began.....

Posted by: pwalterkumar | March 5, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

She and Bill lost a Congressional majority and any chance of meaningful healthcare reform. The repeal of banking and other financial regulations under Bill's leadership gave us Enron, Dot-bomb, Tele-con and Subprime.

She does know personal economics - like in futures trading.

Read her lips - you can't see her taxes.

That Canadian consulate lied - Clinton benefited. Wash Post - check it out.

In short, Hillary is target rich and is ready to play the victim when people point out legitimate issues in response to her slime.

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

Obama likes changeing his positions in my opinion. Here is just like his position of war in iraq, 2002 and 2007 contradicted to 2007. It was ok in 2004 to support John Kerry for President even though he too voted "yes" on the War In Iraq. Oooo, Ted Kennedy voted "yes" on War in Iraq too. All of the sudden, 2008 isn't ok for Hillary Clinton that voted the same as John Kerry/Ted Kennedy. And, claiming all you like that Obama didn't attack John Kerry in 2004 for a political advantage. Because that just sounded exactly the OPPOSITE of the so-call "new" politics he wanted to practice and give people in the next years. FLIP-FLOPPER!!!

Posted by: jmaj | March 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Day by Day, Obama and his campaign turn me off. Yesterday he complained about the press coverage on him when he had been given a free ride. Today he is threating and said he is going to a negative campaign mode. So much for his promises. We are just waiting for him to break all of his promises that he made to people. WOW!!

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

SeedofChange,
I guess you're a Hillary voter, stupid and parroting all her wacky logic.

Posted by: ednyo2000 | March 5, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Gobama! She will destroy with lies if you let her, hit with the facts like:

from Judicial Watch:
"In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 - and rightly so - for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again)"

What are SOME of those Clinton scandals?
Whitewater land deal-gate, Norman Hsu - Hillary's top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. Rose Law Firm, Files-gate, travel-gate, schedule -gate, tax return - how did you become kabillionaires so recently and quickly? cattle futures-gate, donations from firm rife with sexual harassment-gate, $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal-gate, contributions from drug smugglers, Mark Penn's ties to Blackwater-gate, Johnny Chung, pardons for cash-gate, Castle Grande , Bill"s financial ties to the emir of Dubai. Bill was paid $10 million for his connections.
Her verbatim defense on most of these scandals??? "Whatever mistakes she might have made, she says, were the result of naivete."

Hail To The Chief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: murphy.davy | March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Ummm... finally Obama takes the gloves off? As an Obama supporter, Obama seems not that a smart guy. As it said, he is naive or sheer dimwit who doesn't know what's going on until somebody hits his face.

Do I still support him? Yeah, for now because I just don't like phony Hillary.

I wish Obama should fight back hard from now on without all these comical high-road tactics. If not, he'll be history. Who cares? He is not qualified for US president, anyway. Period.

Posted by: sukkee | March 5, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

obama is very dishonest man, here is why Obama is a Christian now. He was born a Muslim because his father was Muslim and his step father was Muslim. According to Muslim religion, the father's religion determines the religion of the offspring. Therefore, Obama was truly once a Muslim although he denies he was ever a Muslim, which shows once again he doesn't have the backbone or honesty to recognize his heritage. When he came to the U.S to live with his maternal grandparents, is when he was introduced to Christianity. To hear him say that he's never been a Muslim his entire life is truly a lie since he spent his first 10 years in Indonesia, a Muslim country, living with a Muslim step father and don't forget the law in Islam called TAGIYEH which means you can lie about your religion in order to do good for Allah! My question to you is what good does obama plan to do for Allah! Since he has the public backing of Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister, Obama agrees and highly respects the opinions of his spiritual advisor Rev. Wright who has recently awarded notorious Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister with their churches highest award, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, in the form of anti-Semitism, record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. Farrakhan has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes. He talks of Jewish conspiracies and reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Obama who HAS NOT distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe and Rev Wright heaped praise of Farrakhan. Applauding his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation. They praised "his integrity and honesty and called him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose. And we should just trust our great country to a media made fairy tale which in last few days, several campaign financers, corrupt business and personal friends suck as indicted Rezko, former Dallas Mayor Hill, Rep. Rick Renzi and Mr. Auchi, leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime convicted for corruption in France, the British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions and millions of dollars to Obama are coming out of the woodwork left and right, lies about side meetings with Canada going behind the American voters backs telling us one thing and them another. ALL this from the half black ex-Muslim man who touts change and claims to be a uniter of all people? Proof he is just another in-experienced Washington politician that the media gave a free pass at the risk of our great country!

Posted by: dyck21005 | March 5, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I hate to remind everyone of one of our country's tenets. It is called FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Even though Barack is NOT a Muslim, in a country that has religious freedom, why can't a Muslim be a president? Even if he were Muslim, SO WHAT??? Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity is not a part of our common law. I write this as a christian 54 year old white woman.

Posted by: soulpainter95 | March 5, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama born to a muslim father and mother. Brought up by muslim step father in hot bed of terrorist.

Obama can not be trusted with nuclear button.

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 5, 2008 12:37 PM

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

You're either terribly misinformed or an awfully disgusting racist. I think you know those are lies. His mother was from Kansas. His father was a Kenyan exchange student who was born Muslim and left the family when Barack was two. Obama's middle name may be Hussein but he has been attending the same Christian church for the last 20 years. He may have lived in Indonesia briefly as a child, but was born in and went to school in HI. His grandfather fought in WWII in General Patton's army.
Go crawl back under your rock.

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

Obama born to a muslim father and mother. Brought up by muslim step father in hot bed of terrorist.

Obama can not be trusted with nuclear button.

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 5, 2008 12:37 PM

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

You're either terribly misinformed or an awfully disgusting racist. I think you know those are lies. His mother was from Kansas. His father was a Kenyan exchange student who was born Muslim and left the family when Barack was two. He lived in Indonesia briefly as a child, but was born in and went to school in HI.

His grandfather fought in WWII in General Patton's army. Go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by: veeve | March 5, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I am curious though why we can not see Hillary's phone records from when she was first lady (She wants to seal them, via the courts, for another two years instead of releasing them this month as they should):

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/item.php?itemid=503389

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to eatmesomecookies -- you're welcome : )

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

rmattocks:

The REPUBLICAN Legislature moved that primary up, against the wishes of the State Democratic Party, probably to mess with their delegates. You have a point about Michigan though.

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Careful, julieds, about using his middle name (you may get called hateful names and told to go to hell ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

What is with this Florida and Michigan should be allowed b.s.? Didn't those states clearly reject and ignore party rules not to move their primary dates up? Didn't those states basically give the democratic party their a$$ to kiss when asked not to do it? So why should we all of a sudden feel sorry for them both when they clearly violated and broke party rules. The one's who will suffer is the people who voted but that should be on the leaders who allowed the states to vote on the dates not acceptable to the party. Now had those states adhered to party rules, those two states in fact would have determined the direction one of these candidates would be heading in. But since they chose purposely not to follow the rules, Howard Dean as chairman needs to enforce the rules fairly and penalize them. Anything else will be seen as him caving into pressure from Hillary Clinton and her camp, and him being a lame duck DNC chairman. We have rules in this nation that I know people love to break or make up excuses why we should break them but if you allow the rules to govern then you should follow them. Hillary Clinton is not that special that an exemption needs to be put in place for her because she didn't expect to be trailing in this election and all of sudden is crying about it not being fair.

Posted by: rmattocks | March 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The Obama cultist are driving the Clinton People over the edge - no joke. I make sarcastic remarks and 2 minutes later some Obama says the same thing - except not joking.

The HRC people are good people who care about the country and don't want pres. like Bush. Even if Obama is not 'like' Bush we just don't know. We also like reality. They sound like the VRWC except not so raciest.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Dear Barack,

You're a sports fan, so you'll understand this analogy: playing prevent defense when you're ahead is playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win--and as you know, many teams have lost their lead by this timid strategy. We need you to finish what you started in the way that you started. So please consider the following:

1. Start inspiring us again. Hillary looks silly and curmudgeonly when she mocks the power of words and speeches and the power of a movement. Words are inspiring because of the message and the messenger: we want change, and you embody this possibility. Hillary cannot compete with you in this arena because she embodies the divisive and disheartening politics of power and manipulation. Lately, you've seemed to want to prove that you can out wonk her, so as to prove that you're more than speeches--but the millions that have been voting for you know that you are. We're not that blind. We want change, and we believe that you can help administer this change by offering power back to the people. So stop trying to prove that you're more than speeches because that's just reacting to Hillary's desperation. Do not allow it to work. She'd love to make you an uninspiring wonkette. As a former academic, there's a big difference between KNOWLEDGE in one's specialties in the Ivory Tower and the WISDOM of sound judgment (applied knowledge) in the real world.

2. Defend us! Do not let Hillary off the hook when she mocks millions and millions of your voters by portraying us as delusional and starry-eyed. She's not just trying to have a laugh; she's trying to make us seem like idiots for believing in you. Defend us! Tell her to stop insulting democratic voters. Tell her it's offensive. Tell her she can attack you, but to stop attacking those voters that support her party. Tell the world that the difference between you and her is that you continue to respect her voters by stating that she's a solid candidate and welcoming their participation, while she consistently dismisses and discredits every person and state that does not vote for her. That's a big difference between the two of you and its telling. Her politics is petulant and juvenile--and you should stop helping her get away with it by calling it a good joke. We vote for you BECAUSE we're thoughtful and critical about our world, BECAUSE we're not so easily duped by the Clinton machine, BECAUSE we're tired of high school politics--so tell her enough is enough, BECAUSE she's not insulting you but the American people who are not on her side (which has always been her M.O.)

3. No need to play dirty, but it's okay to question her great claim of experience, especially if that's her primary argument for being the next President (I see that you're beginning to do just that). Experience is fine, but what kind of experience? For example, experience in corporate law or on the Wal-Mart board or on international tours with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow or in political divisiveness--is not experience we can believe in. Rather it's the kind of EXPERIENCE we can't believe in. In other words, it's not experience that matters; it's the kind of experience that matters. That's difference is what will allow you to challenge both Clinton and McCain. The kind of experience that Lincoln had (similar to your own experience) was more important than the kind of experience that Bush had (most significantly, a direct relation to a former President a la Hillary). So what is the real substance of her experience?

So, Barack, please continue to play to win, regardless if you're the underdog or frontrunner. Do what you do best: Lead, Inspire, and Defend WE, the People.

Posted by: makijames | March 5, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I am a Black Republican and I have watched the Democratic Primaries with complete astonishment. I am both ashamed and bewildered how so many people have come to be so low in their assessment of the candidates. The candidates' dirty politics has affected most of the folks that provide a blog. It should be about the issues and America has plenty. I really do like what Obama is saying and what he stands for and what he wants to accomplish. Our country is so divided and messed up, that we need someone to bring us together for our own good before it is too late.

We have lost our way and what we should be doing and how we should be doing it. I have nothing against Hillary nor John MC, but I do believe in my gut and in my mind that Obama would make a better President. Hillary is looking to just make history and not necessarily help the American people; although this is what she claims and John MC is hoping to serve his country in what he feels is the ultimate office. He is unfortunately a few years past that window of opportunity.

People it is about us and where we go from here. We must become united as our title infers: United States of America. God Bless America and those who choose Right over Might and remain humble.

Posted by: jlwadd123 | March 5, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I smell more fear today than last night.

Obambi run for the bushes. The Canadians want another meeting on NAFTA. They have Memos AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is nothing but the same old same old.I am so sick of folks talking about the record of Billary. Who will really run this country if Billary is elected? If she wants to campaign using her husbands records she should take credit for everything that went wrong as well. Its amazing to me that a first lady can claim Foreign Policy experience just by association. I think that she is an extremely dishonest woman hungry for power and personal gain. She represents the old status quo. She is great competition for Obama, but she plays so dirty that I can only expect she will do the same if elected. And I really hope when Obama wins the nomination that he does not select her as his running mate. Or even surcome to pressure to select her. I would not want the Clinton reputation to tarnish his name and positive positions for change globally and nationally. I donated money to the Obama campaign because I believe in my heart that he deserves this chance. Bush Jr., Hillary,.....experience by association. No Foreign Policy experience. I really wish people used more intellect with such an important decision as selecting our next president. I have thoroughly researched and made an educated decision in my support of Obama. I am starting to wonder if the racist tactics that have been used against Obama regarding his name, ethnicity, and religion are impacting peoples decision to not vote for him. He is by far more intelligent, collegial, and mild tempered than the hot head Clinton. Obama is definitely the person who can turn this country and its good name around with effective change. So many folks are trying ever so hard to spoil his reputation by creating rumors and talking points around his middle name. Lame Lame Lame! Give the man a chance! GO BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: arttiz | March 5, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

jklornan asked: "I would like to know how all of the Clinton supporters plan on dealing with the delegate math?"

Hillary should get all the superdelegates where she has won the popular vote, every large state but Obama's IL, and Obama likewise, the red and black states.

Now I know that won't happen, for example, Kennedy and Kerry support Obama even though MA voted for Hillary, but that's what should happen. It's what was always said would happen in newspapaers prior to the primaries starting ("superdelegates are assumed to be voting for the way their state votes but they are free to vote any way they want", etc.)

The Democratic Party may split delegates because they are too often politically correct to a level of ignorance that is breathtaking, but the superdelegates is what the winner of a state should walk away with in addition to splitting the pledged delegates.

Also, Hillary is releasing her tax filing on or about April 15. This is earlier than any other nominee has released their's in the past. They waited until they were the nominee.

In addition, Hillary's representatives have not missed any deadline in releasing her White House records and they are now being released by the current administration in the next two weeks.

Meanwhile, last I heard from Obama, he was dodging questions about Resko and his house land deal which appears to have been financed by a Saddam bagman through a Chicago Syrian slumlord openly being investigated for corruption at the time and now on trial.

"Hey, I answered like, eight questions" Obama said. "Gotta go".

He'll have to be vetted before he's a VP candidate or he would sink the ticket.

It'll take more than eight questions, none of which were answered. You got the press investigating you now, Obama. They're not going to stop till they get answers, and unfortunately the answer is you have a connection to shady mideast characters that requires answers.

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | March 5, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget the call for Republicans in Ohio and Texas to vote for Hillary. That's what got her the lead. The right wing think they can defeat her in November and keep the same old Bush crap in office. In addition, America would rather see anyone but a black man in office, so look for more dirty tricks.

Posted by: thegirl119 | March 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

And you too, "SeedofChange"--you also can go to hell. You and JakeD known damn well that Obama is no Muslim terrorist; you are just spreading slander and lies. I hope to God that you and your ilk are not being supported by the Clintons. But I suspect that you are. I look forward to Hillary unequivocally rejecting and denouncing you and your kind.

Let's talk about the issues and leave the flith to the Rush Limbaughs, where it's expected.

Posted by: jm917 | March 5, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

JakD...step out of your Mom's basement and look for a LIVE girl...punk!

SHILLARY CAN'T WIN THE WHITEHOUSE WITHOUT OBAMA SUPPORTERS. Obama supporters will NEVER vote for her. Game Over.

Posted by: tjfrmla | March 5, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"People associated with the slumlord, Rezko trial, are indicating that Obama may be a witness in Rezko's trial and also may be indicted."

Which people?
What association?

In fact, the exact opposite it true: Obama is NOT on the witness list and the PROSECUTORS have said he is not under any indictment threat.

But I guess in politics if you say something enough times it becomes true.

Hm.... that give me an idea....

Clinton cannot win because she is losing the delegate count by too much.

Clinton cannot win because she is losing the delegate count by too much.

Clinton cannot win because she is losing the delegate count by too much.

Clinton cannot win because she is losing the delegate count by too much.

Hey, look! It's true already.
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | March 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary proved her mettle last night. She's one Do-anything-to-win, low-ball, gutter politician who cynically decries the "politics of personal destruction" while skillfully participating in it.

Bring on a true vetting of Clinton and her years of drama in the last administration, refusal to release tax records etc.

We know she wants to bring down Obama to her gutter level of politics. He may have to play in the gutter during the next few weeks' fight but lets hope he doesn't stay there long. Bill Clinton did nothing to build the democratic party in the9 0's leaving us with a Republican legislature and many fewer governorships. They did however maintain their personal power base. This may be the second trail of tears left by a Clinton in the Democratic party. It's just too tiring and demoralizing.

Posted by: michael.schmitz | March 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Once again, one is left to wonder what function was performed by Ms Murray in the production of this "article".

Posted by: zukermand | March 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Dear God, have the nuts been energized by Hillary's win. I haven't seen this much energy from JakeMOORED and IowaTreasures in weeks.

Love how the posts immediately go the route of "he's muslim, he's a terrorist." Again, proving how rational and articulate Hillary's base truly is.

I am ASTOUNDED time and again when Hillary supporters accuse Obama of dishonesty, lack of integrity or lying. Where have you people been in the last 16 years? Do you even REMEMBER the Clinton Era?

Yes, they ended up doing well as president and the economy blossomed. Partially because 2 years in they had a Republican congress that moderated their positions and because of the advent of personal computers that revolutionized business in this country.

BUT, how can you forget "travelgate?" Whitewater? Pardoning Marc Rich? Lying before Congress and being disbarred? The Medical fiasco? Rose Law Firm issues for Hillary?

These two have proven time and again that they are smart, crafty, and willing to LIE to the public to get their way. You cannot trust them.

As for "empty promises in speeches," how about promising all those new jobs in New York, Hillary, and then 30,000 are lost? As for "not holding hearings," how about you not attending hearings while you are on the campaign trail? As for Rezko, what about Norman Hsu? Where are your tax returns?

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw hypocritical stones.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 5, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear Texas Open,

11 puny $100 Obama donations will whip your $1,000 Clinton donation.

Signed,
Puny Contributor

Posted by: scpato | March 5, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's see what happens to Obama when he comes does from the Mountain. Will his supporters, who view him through rose-colored glasses, still love him as he gets down in the dirt and dukes it out with Hillary? Or will he turn into just another politician ... same old, same old, that he claims he is not.

But playing tough is not new to Obama, after all, he's "from Chicago, the South side of Chicago."

And he played tough from the very beginning of his political career. Here is a passage from a story by a reporter who covered Obama while he was in Chicago and knows him better than any other reporter.
*****************************

"Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets -- to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district -- to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

"A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career," wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."
*****************************

A more realistic picture of Obama that showed his ambitions for higher office, the lengths he went to achieve them, and how he did not hesitate to walk over people to accomplish his ends. Not quite the picture of Hope and Unity and Change that you expected to see from this candidate. He has warts and some of them ain't pretty.

Must reading for all Obama supporters to find out more about your candidate. It will be interesting to see how they explain and rationalize away some of the points made by the reporter, Todd Spivak.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

Barack Obama and Me
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
By Todd Spivak
Published: February 28, 2008, Houston Press

Posted by: David2007 | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Since it is unlikely that she will meet the percentage gains required in the subsequent 9 contests, she will most likely be at least 100 delegates (and probably a few hundred thousand total votes) to the poor after Puerto Rico. Why would the super delegates supercede those factors? I'd prefer some rational answers rather than the usual abuse, though I expect the latter.

And, for what it's worth, I'm a registered Republican from AZ who will vote for either Democratic candidate over McCain.

Posted by: jklorman | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM

OK I will be nice as it sounds like a good question.

1. The popular vote is the key.

2. Also the size of the states she won is important.

Michigan will probably re-vote and have a big turn out. If hillary wins she will be ahead in the popular vote if you count Florida voters. She may be ahead with out a re-vote in Michigan. (that gets you 'choice of the voters') Florida may re-vote as well.

Size matters- NY went for hillary and IL for Obama. However Obama netted 300,000 votes even though if you multiply percentage won by population she should have had a slight lead for those two states. Or put more simply if this were run like a GE Hillary would get to 271 and Obama would not.

That would leave only small red states with out primaries as the reason for Obama's lead. That is the case that can be made without pledged delegates.

Hillary is behind so she has to keep winning. If she is down by every measure then she will not and should not win. I think most HRC people agree with that.

One more point 'if' she wins Michigan, Ohio, Penn and Florida by large numbers and has done well or won in other swing states MO NM NV NH TN WV AK she is probably the best to take on Mac.

That is the best case I can make.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

It is so sad that in this great nation of ours, it is people like Hillary who practice gutter politics that win. The public seems to forget what kind of tactics are used and all anybody cares in the end is who won, who lost. Obama has been too nice to Hillary to the point that she has taken advantage of his niceness by being mean, sarcastic and a liar. To win at any cost, she has trashed unfairly and without justification his qualifications to be commander in chief. She has lied and distorted his record w.r.t. NAFTA just so she could win Ohio! If she becomes the nominee, all I can say is we get what we deserve! For somebody whose husband as president imposed NAFTA on us and for somebody who supported and even praised NAFTA until she started running for president, to trash a consistent opponent of NAFTA is truly amazing. And for the press and the public to buy that argument is even more pathetic. How do we let these happen? Why does the press give her a pass when she says she will release her tax returns at her leisure? Yet, they jump on a false story involving NAFTA, and Canadians and trash Obama for 2-3 days before the important primary? Why didn't they pursue Hillary's tax records with the same zeal? Something is rotten in USA, when a honest candidate loses to a despicable one due to barrage of mean attacks by the latter including the kitchen sink! Heaven help us!

I think it is time that Obama realizes that he won't become president and won't be able to help this nation overcome politics-as-usual by being nice. He should go on the attack himself, matching blow for blow. There is plenty of material to use to pay Clintons in their own currency - travel gate, Lincoln bedroom, Monica, tax returns, special interests etc. Unless he does that, Billary will steal this nomination against all rules. It is amazing she says she should be the nominee, when Obama has the most delegates, won most states, won most popular votes, can mobilize the young, the independent and even republicans, when all she can do is appeal to the over 50 women and not-so-well-to-do whites! What gall! And the press and the nation is falling for this nonsense? Whatever happened to playing by the rules? What does she not understand in the statement "In a democracy, majority wins." Majority of delegates, majority of votes, majority of states! It is so pathetic that I am tempted to hold my nose and vote for McCain come November if she is our nominee!!!

Posted by: kant1 | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

This tough primary will only strengthen Obama for the general election. The points Hillary is making now--is he strong enough to answer the call--would eventually have come up anyway.

For those who doubt his experience, we'll see how he does now he's facing a little adversity. That's the real test of character: how you react after a loss. I'm looking forward to him coming back even stronger.

Posted by: amaikovich | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama's best move now is to announce that will ask Clinton to share the Democratic ticket if he is nominated. That will underscore his claim that he is a uniter and defuse some of the attacks that would help McCain in the general election campaign:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-move-to-disarm-clinton.html

Posted by: connectdots | March 5, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Her experience is about the equivalent of Laura Bush's. Let's start with her tax returns. Why has the press given her a free pass on that one?

Posted by: SarahBB | March 5, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Go to hell, JakeD. You are hatemonger and a slanderer, and that's exactly where you belong.

Posted by: jm917 | March 5, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

SeedofChange--I believe you're looking for the Republican party. I would pray that no Democratic candidate would welcome comments like that.

Posted by: youba | March 5, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

texasopen,

Hillary will gladdly accept that 1K to try to get her campaign back in the black. Slinging mud is expensive (glad you like to support Rovian tactics). Hillary's idea of change is to campaign like a republican... classic!

Posted by: dennism | March 5, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the queen of victim politics. She knows how to play that victim card particularly with the older women who felt burned by their male husbands and bosses.

Primary Colors was touted in its day as a overly accurate portrayal of the Clinton in campaign mode. We are seeing this in living Primary colors again.

Ever wonder 'why' the press is so turned off by the Clintons? Why so many top leaders of the Democratic Party have supported Obama?

What we will witness now is the utter destruction of any chance of a Democratic nominee winning in November. The Democratic Party will be torn apart in the slash and burn politics of the Clintons.

My prediction: Come next november--our next President--President John McCain.

Peter

Posted by: fr.garry | March 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama is correct about "testing" Hillary's ethics. Wait until you see the 3am telephone attack ad featuring the midnight pardon of Marc Rich and the question "Why?"

Posted by: ViewFromAfar | March 5, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

People associated with the slumlord, Rezko trial, are indicating that Obama may be a witness in Rezko's trial and also may be indicted. Obama supporter's cling to your wallet and aspirations.

Posted by: utworcurious | March 5, 2008 12:56 PM
-------------------------------------------

That is awesome news. Kind of scary, isn't it? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

On behalf of all who read these comments, I would like to thank JakeD for his keen insight and mastery of rhetoric. His cotinuation to take a stand on the highly substantive issue of middle names shows a committment to elevated discourse that is a refreshing change from the petty bickering of who-voted-for-what and whose-policy-ideas-are-better.

In these scary times, it's important that we judge our candidates' familial histories as a direct reflection of his/hs character and beliefs. By evaluating a politician based soley on his/her words and actions, we completely ignore the vital surface level assessments to be made.

So thank you JakeD, I look forward to reading your future vetting of so-called American JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN. I think we both know what foreign country's largest city he "happens" to be named after. Not to mention what "Mac" might embarrass the nation by wearing at inauguration. (Hint: it looks like a skirt, but plaid)

Posted by: eatmesomecookies | March 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary is behind 86 delegates. There are many more to go. Hillary has done a remarkable job.

The super delegates have to keep in mind that Hillary has led with real Democrats - in all states except Illinois and New Mexico.

On that basis, since this will be a Democratic nominee, the super delegates should honor the voice of the nation. It's Hillary - more big states, more democratic states. Those little states Obama won are going to go back to the Republican side in the fall.

We can't let the Republicans take away our good nominee, Hillary. And the super delegates have an obligation to vote for the best candidate - and that is Hillary.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The VP position should go to the loser of the nominating race, which is, and will be, Clinton. As for Clinton's OH and TX wins, they rested on coalition of white women, down-market Democrats, and older Hispanics. This isn't a coalition that will win the White House. For all of her "momentum," Clinton's coalition still hasn't expanded during this contest.

Posted by: Quino | March 5, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

People associated with the slumlord, Rezko trial, are indicating that Obama may be a witness in Rezko's trial and also may be indicted. Obama supporter's cling to your wallet and aspirations.

Posted by: utworcurious | March 5, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama is steadily racking up a list of times when he has not been honest during this campaign. I think that is going to be his downfall.

Obama has a record of saying things that are contrary to his big rally stump rhetoric.

Such as NAFTA, such as saying he barely knew Rezko during a past debate, denying his affiliation with the Trinity Church, talking about his "community organizing work on the streets of Chicago," while, in fact, he had an office in the Trinity Church, reaching out to the people on the streets of Chicago - for what purpose? For recruitment into that Trinity Church?

He says he is a "uniter" not a "divider," well, I have never seen this country so divided. Obama has pitted the blacks against the whites, the whites against the blacks, the young against the old, the insiders vs. the outsiders, and on and on.

Obama talks about people in Washington who have been there too long. And he says this against the back drop of Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, Clyburne, Lewis, Jesse Jackson, Oprah, etc.

Going to Google will tell about the politics of "Divide and Conquer," and Obama fits the bill on that score.

Obama has borrowed, lifted, used without permission so much of his campaign rhetoric.

"Change" and "Hope," came from Bill Clinton's campaign.

"Yes, we can," came from the migrant farm workers in California when Cezar Chavez and RFK worked to unite the farm workers.

"Audacity of Hope," title for Obama's book came from REv. Wright's sermon, "Audacity of Hope."

"Just Words" speech came from Patrick.

A writer who knew Obama for many years, said he didn't take up the tone of MLK until about the time he wanted to run for the presidency. Obama had been chided about being "too vanilla," before that.

While Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, the "kingmaker" of the Senate, Jones, took many, many bills that other lawmakers had worked on for a long time and put Obama's name on them as the sponsor. Those lawmakers were very angry and still do not like Obama.

So much for reaching across the aisle. Yes, Obama reaches across to people on his side of the aisle. to take other people's hard work and bills as his own, to embellish his "resume."

Obama also missed many crucial votes, a couple of them while he was vacationing in Hawaii.

Obama is not a very honorable man. The other Rezko shoe could drop at any time.

Obama may not be proved to have done anything wrong, but what is learned on the surface isn't exactly commendable.

Rezko funded and campaigned for Obama to get his senate seat. Obama in return, wrote letters on his Illinois State Legislature official letter head, on behalf of Rezko to city and state officials that netted Rezko fourteen million dollars.

Obama sat in on Rezko business meetings to influence investors for Rezko.

Rezko was under federal indictment for "influence peddling, and other corruption
charges" when Auchi (an Iraqi billionaire) was sending questionable large sums of money to Rezko, some were illegal loans, so the FBI picked Rezko up from his two billion dollar bail status "because he was moving large sums of money around," and incarcerated him pending trial, that is now going on.

Auchi also funded terrorists in Iraq. This can be pooh poohed by Obama supporters, but they are facts. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama will likely gain 10-15 delegates on Hillary in Mississippi alone, neutralizing her wins last night.

And I hope Obama sticks to honesty and accuracy, which is more than Hillary or the mass media can say. In the week before March 4, CNN was taking their headlines directly from Clinton's campaign talking points. She showed no signs of actual progress, but she released a few slimy fear-mongering ads and attacks and the media acted like it was the most significant thing to happen in this race to date. Oh my, Hillary releases an advertisement about a phone call and CNN anoints her as the nominee!

I'm more interested in how much debt Clinton incurred with her Texas/Ohio spending spree. This should be the Obama message - fiscal irresponsibility. How can Clinton claim she will deliver economically if every time there's a close contest she spends herself into extreme debt? That is highly disturbing to me. I'm tired of debt spending, both with my peers (post-college grad students flash credit cards like they're on a corporate account or something) and with the federal government, who has been bogged down by deficit spending for almost a decade now.

Hillary can't manage her campaign or her financing for it. Her millionaire donors are all maxed out and now she's borrowing money from anyone who will loan it to her so she can pay for another smear attack against Obama. Good job Hillary, deficit spend yourself into another primary. It's what Bush does and it's what we'd expect from a dirty slimeball like you.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 5, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I think it is unfortunate that Clinton decided to use a page out of Karl Rove's
playbook, by going negative on Obama. This is a perfect example of why she will lose the election, even if she wins the nomination. Right-minded Americans are fed up with this brand of politics. It is destructive to our country, and has diverted our attention from the serious problems we must face. If Clinton is nominated - McCain will be the next president, because he will not go there. Clinton is doing great damage to the Democratic party by staying in this race. Barack Obama is our best hope of overcoming the partisan divide that is destroying our country. Senator Clinton - it's time to put the good of the country ahead of your own personal ambitions. Step aside. I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime, but not THIS woman, and not THIS election. The stakes are too high.

A lifelong Democrat and former Bill Clinton supporter.

Posted by: pdwatson | March 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Divisive dirty politics of the Obama campaign! Obama can't answer reporters' questions and instead darts out the door. He can't attack Hillary on the issues. This tax return attack is lame. Who's getting a desperate now?

Posted by: krm22201 | March 5, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

When is the press going to stop giving the Clintons a free ride on the question of why they haven't released their tax returns? After HRC said in the last debate that she was too busy to release her returns, the press failed to point out that releasing the Clintons' 2006 returns, which presumably were filed in 2007, would not be a major chore -- unless, of course, those returns would raise serious questions that she and her staff need weeks to prepare for. When HRC finally said that she'd release her returns in April 2008, no one asked whether she'd be releasing her 2006 returns (as Obama did in 2007), or whether she's planning to release only her 2007 returns. Are the Clintons trying to hide something in their 2006 returns? And if she releases only her 2007 returns on the eve of the PA primary, will the press conveniently (for her and WJC) forget to ask questions about the 2006 returns?

Posted by: wordpowercommunications | March 5, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

LOL, if the Glove doe not fit, he must acquit! ;~)

Any Blood on those Gloves?

NEITHER CAN'Tidate can gather enough Regular Delegate Votes! :-(

Losers!

Well, lets see, I have a Pair of Lawyer Losers, and a Wild Card named Ralph Nader, against your Executive Full House...

Posted by: rat-the | March 5, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I won't give any more money to Obama, he can get much more from Rezko's wife. She gave him $19,000 and bought his adjacent lot for $600,000 when her income is only $35,000. Is this transparency and honesty? Obama has duped the youths so far but that will not happen to me again. I supported him believing he was really going to change politics in Washington but now that facts are emerging about his association with slumlord, Rezko and his deceptive NAFTA tactics, where he tells us that he is against it and then sends his emissary to the Canadian embassy to say that it is just rhetoric. He is acting like slick Obama.

Posted by: utworcurious | March 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD, nice to see you've decided to support Obama!

Obama is right, Hillary's "experience" claim will look RIDICULOUS next to McCain. Add to that all the Clinton scandals that the RNC is sure to drag up, and the fact that HILLARY ALREADY LOSES TO MCCAIN in all the matchups, and y'all can kiss goodbye any hopes of having a dem in the Whitehouse.

SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA '08!!!

Posted by: julieds | March 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

jklorman:

Perhaps you have missed my posts on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, as well as posts about the supere delegates?

Whether you think it would be a push with Independents (I am registered Independent) or not, the fact remains that SOME Democrats -- I will not call them "out of their right minds" -- will vote for McCain (remember the Reagan Democrats?). At this point, the only ways I see the Democrats winning this election are a joint-ticket or for something to happen to McCain.

Speaking on "The Early Show" this morning, Hillary DIANE Clinton hinted at sharing the ticket with Obama: "that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket." Barack HUSSEN Obama replied: "It is premature to talk about a joint ticket."

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

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

From the blog:

The American people are not good enough and don't deserve Obama. Please Obama forgive us for we 'know not what we do.'

We are just unwashed masses who think you need some exp. before you get the most important job in the world.

We haaaaaaaaave hurt your golden soul. Now you have to be like that witch. It is like star wars (the one with the ewalks) don't let your petulance control your actions.

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Amen jklorman. I have to say though as an independent, I might register as a Republican after this nasty Democratic race (with its identity politics). Obama is the only reason I voted Democratic in the primaries. If the superdelegates reject the electorate's choice (in the form of pledged delegates) and nominate Clinton, I WILL vote for McCain.

Posted by: Quino | March 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

About time Obama's glove came off. the notion that he can play Mr.Nice Guy and still win this is,with all due respects,naive.
if Hillary wants contrasts and legitimate issues raised, please give her some.
GO OBAMA!!!

Posted by: kofiapea | March 5, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Hilary may have won both Ohio and Texas
but her net gain in delegates was meager.
In OH, she gained 12 over Obama; in Texas just 2. Hardly big wins.
See
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/primary?date=2008-03-04&ref=ipb

Posted by: abrockway | March 5, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Go McCain!!!!!

Posted by: JAMoore1 | March 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD "One Trick" Poster. Do you have anything substantive to post or is constant bellowing of Obama's middle name the beginning and end of your posting capabilities?

I would like to know how all of the Clinton supporters plan on dealing with the delegate math? Hillary is already significantly behind in pledged delgates, will lose more in Wyoming and Mississippi in the next few days, and is expected to pick up minimal delegates in PA, at best. Since it is unlikely that she will meet the percentage gains required in the subsequent 9 contests, she will most likely be at least 100 delegates (and probably a few hundred thousand total votes) to the poor after Puerto Rico. Why would the super delegates supercede those factors? I'd prefer some rational answers rather than the usual abuse, though I expect the latter.

And, for what it's worth, I'm a registered Republican from AZ who will vote for either Democratic candidate over McCain.

Posted by: jk5432 | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm happy to hear Obama's more aggressive stance. He got ahead of himself and acted as if he were the actual nominee. He will have to get down in the dirt and start slinging as the Clinton campaign has. Unfortunately, they will not allow him to win clean---he will have to get dirty....just not too dirty. I supported Obama long before he became the supposed media darling and master orator, because I know that someone of his caliber only comes around once a generation. Shame on the Democrats for allowing the Clintons to dupe them into letting them compete another day! The don't deserve such a man because of their idiocy and myopia. I will support Obama until he wins the nomination and election!

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

Ya, ask why she doesn't want to post her tax returns. Does it have to do with international land deals? Every body seems to have forgotten how bull headed she was in the white house from "day one" Not releasing files when asked, secretive health care meetings, ect. Travel gate. It goes back to her insisting we take her word for her role as First Lady and not pushing to release papers to prove her claims of participation in international affairs. I liked the Clintons in the White House. But I have not forgotten all the drama, lies and secretiveness that was the hallmark of most of their problems. Remember too that Bill gave the top one percent a bigger tax break than George. we just didn't care because the economy was good. There is a ton of honest information out there on her that needs to be brought up before we all end up with buyers remorse.

Posted by: pfisher43 | March 5, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

One thing Hillary has not done as first lady is get B slapped by a Right wing Canadian government. That is Obama's first foreign policy exp.

In fact she went to china and told them what was what.

Yes she will!
Yes she will!

Posted by: mul | March 5, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama finally got the message that being nice isn't going to pay in this kind of campaigns. It's time for him to raise the issue of her real foreign policy experience, her tax returns and everything that people need to know. Go Obama.

Posted by: jj2000 | March 5, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama born to a muslim father and mother. Brought up by muslim step father in hot bed of terrorist.

Obama can not be trusted with nuclear button.

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Suzann Malveaux was taking talking points from Obama's people on her Blackberry while she was reporting about Hillary's campaign.

That was the ultimate in reporter shadiness to me. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

With a nominating contest this close and none of the two candidates having a realistic chance to win the nomination by amassing pledged delegates only, it would be political suicide for the the Democratic party to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. If I were advising Hillary, I would tell her to call a press conference today at which she would: (1) "surrender" gracefully any claim she may have to the delegates of those two states that were elected in the faulty primaries already held that she "won", and (2) ask Obama to join her in asking the party to reschedule votes in Florida and Michigan for June 3, the date of the last scheduled election in the continental U.S. I don't see how Obama could refuse such proposal.

Posted by: TommyBarban | March 5, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary proved her mettel last night. She is one strong, determined, intelligent, savvy woman.

And, Bill Clinton doing 7 campaign stops in one day yesterday. What a guy. No wonder 70% of the Democrats love him.

Hillary will do good works for the people of this country. Hillary has been proud of this country her whole, entire adult life.

See you in Pennsylvania, Barack and Michelle.

In the meantime, the DNC should let the voters in Florida who didn't already vote, have an "extended" voting time, either by actual election or by absentee ballots.

It would be silly to spend $10,000,000 on a new election. AND NO CAUCUSES ALLOWED - primary votes only. Obama did campaign in Florida - his national t.v. ads ran in Florida and Obama knew they would before he paid for the ads.

Obama is always trying to "fix" the elections by his inflated information about delegate counts, and by his talking points e-mails and phone conversations to the media telling them what to say.

The ultimate in that regard was when Suzann Malveaux was taking talking points from the Obama people while she was talking about Hillary's campaign. So disgusting. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

well, to offset mrabbani's $100 donation, I'll have to donate $1,000. Kinda like the Texas 2-step... :-)

Posted by: texasopen | March 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

A big appeal of Obama is that he's different but if he goes too far towards negative politics he'll lose that appeal and do more damage than Hillary and McCain could do together. While I agree he needs to come back and counter Clinton's arguements, he can't push it. Personally I think he's been weak over the past week or so and hasn't been fighting as hard as Clinton. I hope that changes now because he's still in the lead and he needs to extend that lead.

Posted by: somua2 | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Just donated $100 to the Obama campaign. We need to end this divisive, dirty politics of Hillary. She can do anything to get power. It's all for her. We need to take Washington back.

Lets start campaign in PA/WY/MS for Obama.

Posted by: mrabbani | March 5, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

GO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company