Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Team Charges 'Double Standard' on Adviser Statements

Samantha Power (left) joined Richard Danzig (center) and Obama at a foreign policy forum in N.H. in November . (Preston Keres/The Washington Post).

By Alec MacGillis
Barack Obama's campaign, which has been spending more time than it would like discussing the utterances of its academic advisers, this afternoon downplayed the recent suggestion of its newly-departed foreign policy adviser that Obama's pledge to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months was less than hard and fast. And it charged that one of Clinton's Iraq advisers had suggested much the same last week, with little repercussion.

Samantha Power -- Harvard professor, author of books on the Rwandan genocide and slain UN official Sergio Vieira de Mello and resident big thinker in the Obama camp -- said in an interview with the BBC that Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq would inevitably depend somewhat on the circumstances he finds when he takes office. The Clinton campaign this afternoon pounced on the matter of fact remark as proof that Obama's promise to get out troops out of Iraq was disingenuous -- just an hour or two after the Clinton camp successfully demanded Power resign her campaign advisory post for another recent comment, telling the Scotsman newspaper that Clinton was behaving like a "monster."

(Whatever is it with the Obama campaign and the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth? After the recent Canadian consulate flap, the Scotsman and now BBC, one can only imagine there will be another bombshell arriving from New Zealand any day now. The Obama campaign may want to follow the lead of top Clinton aide Mandy Grunwald, who refuses to talk to the foreign press, period.)

The BBC interview proceeded as follows:

BBC: "You said that he'll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment isn't it?

POWER: "You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.

He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn't have daily access now as a result of not being the president. So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me -

BBC:Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?

POWER: It's the best case scenario.

BBC: It's the best case scenario.

POWER: It is -

BBC: And of course in Iraq we've never seen best case scenario.

POWER: We have never seen best case scenario

BBC: So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all.

POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that's the best case, estimate of what it would take.

Clinton seized on these remarks today, comparing them to reports that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had privately assured Canadian officials that Obama's ant-NAFTA rhetoric was partly for political consumption. (The Obama campaign has, in fits and starts, denied those reports, and points to an Associated Press report that the Clinton campaign has given similar assurances to the Canadians.) "Sen. Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in the Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comment especially troubling. While Sen. Obama campaigns on his to end the war his top advisors tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president," Clinton said today. "This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."

In a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe rejected this, saying that Power's comments did not represent a change in Obama's Iraq thinking. "On Iraq he has been very clear. He offered a withdrawal plan well over a year ago, it's essential to his candidacy and a rock solid commitment," Plouffe said. "He obviously feels incredibly strongly on this issue." Pressed by reporters, Plouffe added that Obama would, in one of his first acts as president, meet with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and "make clear...that a withdrawal should begin immediately." "He has been and will continue to be crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president we will be out of Iraq," Plouffe said. "It will be 16 months at the most where you can withdraw combat troops...There should be no confusion about that."

Plouffe also noted that Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the Iraq surge strategy and informal adviser to Clinton on Iraq, had recently told the New York Sun that he doubted Clinton would withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as she has said she would on the campaign trail. "Senator Clinton is very knowledgeable about national security and is probably going to be strong on defense," Keane said. 'I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."

Also on the call, Plouffe said that Power had made the "right decision" in stepping down over the "monster" comment. Power is "a very brilliant person and a valuable part of the campaign, but [the campaign] can't condone those kind of comments," he said. But he charged that there was a "double standard" in Clinton's demanding Power's resignation while responding slowly to several people in her own camp who have strayed across the line, such as BET network founder Bob Johnson and machinists' union president Tom Buffenbarger.

Plouffe also further pressed the Obama campaign's call for Clinton to release her and her husband's tax returns of the past six years as soon as possible, saying there were too many questions about the links between the Clintons' newfound wealth and contributors to her campaign and investors involved in her husband's philanthropic and business ventures. Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today. There is no reason why the six years of prior tax returns cannot be released right now," Plouffe said. "They can go to Kinko's and Xerox them...Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent's essential for the American people to know where they're getting money from."

By Washington Post editors  |  March 7, 2008; 3:18 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Criticizes Obama Aide's Comments on Iraq
Next: Trouble at Texas Caucus Refuted


Senator Obama has won 30 states to Hillary's 14! He has 161 more pledged delegates and he has won the total popular votes. He won the Texas caucus and came away with more total delegates including the Texas primary and the Texas caucus, and so now the "monster" is suing. She threatened to sue in Iowa, Nevada, Texas, Michigan and Florida. Hillary cant win fairly so she lies about her opponent to voters, breaks her agreements, tries to change the rules and sues.

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 13, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

"There was a "double standard" in Clinton's demanding Power's resignation while responding slowly to several people in her own camp who have strayed across the line, such as BET network founder Bob Johnson and machinists' union president Tom Buffenbarger." And Kerrey, and Ferraro!

"Plouffe also further pressed the Obama campaign's call for Clinton to release her and her husband's tax returns of the past six years as soon as possible, saying there were too many questions about the links between the Clintons' newfound wealth and contributors to her campaign and investors involved in her husband's philanthropic and business ventures. Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today. There is no reason why the six years of prior tax returns cannot be released right now," Plouffe said. "They can go to Kinko's and Xerox them...Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent's essential for the American people to know where they're getting money from."

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 13, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Quote: ""Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!""

Your proof for this post, please. I am one who does not believe everything they read.
Your proof, please.

Posted by: wly34 | March 11, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow. After reading what Powers actually said it seems she was saying almost exactly what Obama was saying except saying that things could of course change if conditions merit. Sounds like she was speaking honestly and truthfully. Which means.. Hillary is either lying or exaggerating. Again. I guess that stuff flys in the Clinton universe.

Posted by: cmsatown | March 10, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News!!! Major Political Scandal!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

You should be angry America. "This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)



Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama folks, with all due respect, you are missing the point. Of course it would be irresponsible for Obama to make decisions, once President, without sizing up the current situation with input from his Joint Chiefs, but as I said, that isn't the point. The point is that Clinton doesn't make absurdly optimistic promises which she knows she cannot follow through on. Obama does, apparently in an attempt to take advantage of gullible voters. Now who does that make the cynical, manipulative "monster?" Ok, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - maybe he isn't being cynical and manipulative; rather, maybe he is just inexperienced and naive. Either way, this latest screw up underscores the public's main reservations about Obama.

Posted by: abcde3 | March 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "He claims to be ahead when many of his wins are in caususes where a small minority of the population actually vote, and yet wants to silence millions of voters in Florida And Michigan."

Ridiculous, where have you been? The candidates agreed to pull out of the Florida and Michigan elections. Clinton didn't. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Only Clinton was on the ballot and uncommited still got 44% of the vote! Most didn't bother in Florida because it wasn't supposed to make any difference. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: wly34 | March 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters have been passionate in supporting their candidate, to the point of seeming nasty. But have you seen this ad showing Hillary Clinton authorizing the Iraq War? It's pretty powerful stuff:

Posted by: masonbill12 | March 9, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, I misread the lines. I meant thank you to chersplace.

Barack Obama says he stands for Change, He offers a new kind of Politican, He offers Hope, He will be a uniter He will Inspire.

If the people who are supporting him on these blogs are the example of what he Inspires then our Country is in real trouble.

Calling Hillary Clinton rediculous names, (which he would not condone), Taking every question about the man and making it an issue of Hillary is attacking him. Bringing up very personal parts of her life as a way to denigrate her. Bringing up things about her husband to discredit her but refusing to give her any credit for her time as First Lady.

It does make it seem that his followers are a cult. I am not saying everyone who supports him, I am saying those who do not even want to know the answer to any of these question about him, but will ridicule Hillary Clinton on things that were asked and answered long ago.

I could never follow someone who I know so little about.

He claims to be ahead when many of his wins are in caususes where a small minority of the population actually vote, and yet wants to silence millions of voters in Florida And Michigan.

I find it hard to believe that any American Citizen finds this logic okay.

What happened to the call to count every vote when the last two elections were so flawed?

Posted by: chersplace | March 9, 2008 02:15 PM

Posted by: Golden810 | March 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you, Jonura Smith. Thank you for your post. I'm a 30 year old who has voted in every election in the last 12 years. I'm graduating from pharmacy school this month. As a health provider I believe in Hillary Clinton's ability to make a change in health care, education, economics, and foreign policy. I will vote for Hillary in this election.

Posted by: Golden810 | March 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

For people who keep saying Obama can unite the country and world, I need to see solid evidence please. Otherwise it's just empty rhetorics... like Obama.

You people keep saying "Obama is so great at this and that" but you fail to supply the solid evidence to back up your statements. By evidence I mean records, etc, not YouTube.

The more I hear people worship Obama, the more I want to stay away from the Obama cult.

Posted by: Golden810 | March 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama says he stands for Change, He offers a new kind of Politican, He offers Hope, He will be a uniter He will Inspire.

If the people who are supporting him on these blogs are the example of what he Inspires then our Country is in real trouble.

Calling Hillary Clinton rediculous names, (which he would not condone), Taking every question about the man and making it an issue of Hillary is attacking him. Bringing up very personal parts of her life as a way to denigrate her. Bringing up things about her husband to discredit her but refusing to give her any credit for her time as First Lady.

It does make it seem that his followers are a cult. I am not saying everyone who supports him, I am saying those who do not even want to know the answer to any of these question about him, but will ridicule Hillary Clinton on things that were asked and answered long ago.

I could never follow someone who I know so little about.

He claims to be ahead when many of his wins are in caususes where a small minority of the population actually vote, and yet wants to silence millions of voters in Florida And Michigan.

I find it hard to believe that any American Citizen finds this logic okay.

What happened to the call to count every vote when the last two elections were so flawed?

Posted by: chersplace | March 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The depth and breadth of Barack Obama's crossover support and primary victories are evidence that the only obstacles between the Democratic Party and Barack Obama winning the presidency in a landslide are the Clintons and party bigwigs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Barack Obama is the best candidate to unite, not only the political divisions in America, but the world. He will return and enhance America's credability around the world, much of which has certainly been lost during the Bush Administration's presidnecy.

I watched a news report of Senator Clinton campaigning in Wyoming. Part of her rhetoric was that she would "fix" Saudi Arabia because of the high oil prices. What does she mean by that, she will start another war in Saudi Arabia (a key U.S. alley in the Middle East)? What about fixing the American economy????

This is the type of aggresive, bullying rhetoric that has bought so much hatred, towards America, around the world. The world is fed up with America. Look at the results of America's war in Iraq - 4 million refugees, let alone the millions killed.

Clinton is indeed taking advantage of desperate people, in espousing such stupid rhetoric. She is anything but truthful, or an advocate of change for the better, in America. There would be no change from the George W. Bush administration under her leadership.

Also, if she was unable to properly manage her campaign and her campaign's finances appropriately, how is she going to manage the worlds largest economy?

Posted by: anisaleoni | March 8, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

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)

Posted by: DennisDCICC | March 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's texas tie took limbaugh and hillary together (losing candidate of the left, together with far right), versus the leading democrat Barak Obama.

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

yudon2, desperate attacks may have worked for the desperate hillary supporters in the short-run, but her attacks can come home to roost and bite her in the butt.

you think people will fall for repetitive machine-gun attacks from your camp forever?

is her dirty politics goal to depress turnout?

she has already lost by the numbers that she failed to pull in ohio (and already in texas) which she needed to even begin to catch up.

she will probably try to steal the election. dirty politics, dirty campaign, so go ahead and throw your kitchen sink and your candidates respectability out along with it.

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama said his is a new politics; his words are not just words; he rejected that Hillary said he gave "false hope".

So, it is ironic to defend the NAFTA-gate, the IRAQ-gate by saying Clinton is doing this too.

In fact Clinton didn't have a NAFTA gate. Check CBC report yestarday.

Posted by: yudong2 | March 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

ermias.kifle he's not trying to get the black vote. He's trying to get everyone's vote. What's suprising to me is how Hillary has been able to manipulate all of you into believing her husband did not sign the NAFTA agreement, she didn't vote for the war and she's a victim. The first sign of hope we've had in 30 years and you guys are trying to squash it. I truely don't want to be on your side of the aurgument. You get what you ask for.

Posted by: denise2233 | March 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

What about Clinton claiming John McCain would be a good commander in chief despite his stand on Iraq? How could she say that? Is her commitment to pulling out of Iraq wavering? I would say so.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

When did themedia become afraid to report the news anyway?
Just because Hillary fanatics say it's not fair, their dirty campaign politics have not been working because the media must be biased against her because she is a woman?
Show some backbone, media!
Clinton's kitchen sink strategy inclues attacking the press, but the press shouldn't cower in fear so long after she reached her goal of dirty politics winning ohio for her (with texas still in its caucus stage).
The MEDIA can show its backbone by comments that have recently taken her off guard, imaging daring to ask her how his attack differed from her attack! The gaul that the media dare have her backbone again lest she turn them into doormats again by turning her most fanatic suporters loose on them again. If she's not being treated unfairly better than obama, she will whine, but so goes politics, if she can't handle a presidential race herself that points out her weaknesses in her attacks, the media can't cover that up for her.

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Case in point, look at the comments above that again lie about Obama by calling a christian guy a muslim just because he's black with a name that can be traced to his african-side from this father. Even though he was raised by a Christian single-mom, was raised christian, went to the same church for 20 years, pledges allegiance to the US and to the US flag, and does put his hand on the bible, the kitchen sink strategy at work lets people stoop to praying on fears of someone with a foreign-sounding name?
Back in the day, the attacks against the first catholic president, john f. kennedy, were that he would take orders form the Pope.
Of course Hillary is willing to let the republicans' attacks come early because of the "stoop to anything" (kitchen sink) strategy.
Hillary only accepts the truth in written statements, but in person, she'll keep the rumors going by saying "as far as I know" he's as christian as he and all people that have looked at his past have concluded, he's a chrstian. that's why an earier comment above ws so great: that obama should deny that hillary is a monster, "as far as I know."

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget the rest of the quote about hillary as a metaphor for monster:

"she'll stoop to anything."

the MONSTER comment is a colorful metaphor for her attacks.

The "she'll stoop to anything" comment is more difficult for her supporters to attack.

The has proven the "she'll stoop to anything" line by stooping to the "kitchen sink" strategy and attacking Obama without control, statesmanship, or respectability.

The matephor may be an exaggeration, but just because Clinton doesn't attack teenagers in a low-budget movie while wielding a knife and teling them to vote for her doesn't mean that the meaning of the metaphor, the reference that she'll stoop to anything, isn't already proven by the kitchen sink strategy.

Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Muammar al-Qathafi
Barack Hussein Obama
Abdel Rahman Shalgam
Bashar al-Assad
Abdullah bin Abdul

Can you spot who among these leaders/heads of state is the American president?

Posted by: dsclinton | March 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

DES MOINES, Iowa - An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.

Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.

King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.

"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that."

The Illinois senator, born in Hawaii to a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan man, is a Christian and has said he has little connection to the Islamic religion, though he acknowledges he spent part of his childhood in largely Muslim Indonesia.

In criticizing King, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "These comments have no place in our politics." He called on John McCain, the apparent Republican nominee, to "repudiate them like he has previous offensive comments from his supporters."

Last month, McCain denounced an introduction from Cincinnati talk-show host Bill Cunningham, who referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama."

Posted by: dsclinton | March 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

With winner take all Clinton will have 1721 pledged delegates including Florida & Michigan and Obama will have 1142. Obama will be gone by now. Not only that if the electoral vote method is used, Hillay will have 263 votes and Obama 190. Only 270 votes are needed to win.
I do not know why media is not bringing it up.

Posted by: dsclinton | March 8, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is obviously a monster. This woman actually wants the delegates from Michigan and Florida when the party warned those states not to have their elections early? Clinton is such a cheater she would destroy the democratic party just to become the first female nominee of a major party. If Clinton receives a majority oft he delegates from Michigan or Florida black people will not support her because shes a cheat and McCain will win.Its that simple.

Posted by: lakeqi | March 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Double standards, Why does the press keep saying caucuses favor Obama when the truth is Obama is a better manager than Clinton? Each time Obama has closed huge gaps in almost all the primaries why? better manager, clear vision and purpose. Meanwhile Clinton bankrupts her campaign, has bigots running amok while she looks away, throws tantrums on national TV and lies and distorts Obama's records through her teeth?
If elected America can see the real leaps and bounds in change Obama brings, for Hilary it will be spin, harassment, lies and more of the same kneejerk management.
Talk about a monster!

Posted by: FebM | March 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama has stated publically, and repeatedly, that he has his plan for the Iraq pull-out. Obama has also said he would most certainly consider the situation on the ground and the advice of the military officials, when making decisions.

Hillary feels she has to twist and blow up everything to discredit Obama. Then after insulting Obama, belittling his credentials, and praising McCain over her co-Democrat, Hillary has the audacity to imply that he could be her VP. Just to get Obama's supporters, obviously. Hillary does not possess the level of integrity or decency I would want in my President.

Posted by: Christine6 | March 8, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Was undecided until recently. Now not sure I'll vote for either. Favor O'Bama over Monster but not sure.

Posted by: pasolis | March 8, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

It's really pathetic that enlightened people will be blasting Obama camp over a comment about iraq pullout. Only common sense will tell you that you can make good plans now but things may change in 11 months time that will make it foolhardy for you to carry out your then good plans. By the way didn't Hillary Clinton promise New Yorkers thousands of jobs during her campaign for the senate years back only to renege on her promises. Please if you are so dumb to make constructive arguments, stop posting comments on this site. You make me sick.

Posted by: bontumed | March 8, 2008 5:42 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama is quick to realize and correct a mistake, where Clinton gives excuses. Lets look at the current primary to prove this point. Rezko, Farrakan, Powers have been rejected by Obama's campaign and he said the surge is obviously working. It is up to military command to say whether Obama's timetable is strategically and logistically possible, no one else is qualified. It took Hillary years to allude her Iraq vote may have been a bad decision. A governor that speaks of racism in his state without condemning it is not a good supporter. Why is he not gone without a statement condemning racism? Why are there excuses for the surge working? Taking responsibility for mistakes and correcting them shows good leadership. Excuses are like butt cheeks, everyone has them, the talented don't use them and correct mistakes.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 8, 2008 4:56 AM | Report abuse

I think that both Power, Clinton and Michelle Obama are just the normal c___nts. This is the problem. You cannot have a tw__t in power. Look at the idiot fur bags running the Clinton campaign - all of them combined do not have a single brain in their heads. They pillory genius like Mark Penn when they are on the rag. Of course Hillary is a monster sometimes - when she's remembering or experiencing that time of the month. And that moron Plouffle - or Poofle - what's that moron about?

Posted by: DeborahShapseMD | March 8, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse

It seems like Powers pegged the right description for Hillary and her spouse. They will stop at nothing to get back into the whitehouse.
What about all the lies and people lives they destroyed.
1. "I smoked pot, but I did't inhale"
2. The tax records.
3. The 7 people that could incremenate them that were killed or disappeared.
4. I did not have sex with that woman, I just let her blow me and smoked a cigar that I put in private places on her body.
5. The superdelegates they have given money too.
6. Whitewater.
7. If he had been watching bin laden, instead of lying about Monica, we may not have had 911, and therefore no Iraq war.
8. Hillary trying to ruin healthcare,
9. Our preteens and teens think oral sex is not sex.
The list goes on.

Posted by: obgcbh | March 8, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Its 3AM in the morning and our kids are sleeping.

Then there comes a MONSTER thru the door, its HILLARY TO EAT OUR CHILDREN...

Posted by: briancraj | March 7, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse


I Bill Clinton know it, and I approve this message.

Posted by: briancraj | March 7, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

@ wly34:
Term limits for family lines is what we need.

We turn up our noses when Putin manages to usurp the Russian term-limit law by supporting a lackey for his position and taking another position of leadership in the government.

But we don't have a problem with Bill using his Presidential stature to campaign for his wife for a chance to get back into the White house for a 3rd term of his own.

Political dynasties are a reality the world over. The Ghandis of India, the Bhuttos of Pakistan, but it still reeks of oligarchical succession to me.

Ms Power sounds more like an Obama blogger than a Harvard professor.

One and the same my friend, remember that, one and the same.

Posted by: NittyGritty08 | March 7, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clintons Bank Roll, here's a little insight on why it's taking so long:

1. Hillary's Comm. Director - Howard Wolfson. Howard Wolfson - Partner with Glover Park. Glover Park - $3,100,000 lobbying Income('07). Lobbyists/Employees of Glove.. - have given about $40,000 to Mrs. Hill, thus far...


2. Bill pulled in $3.3 million from his work with "Info USA"

3. Clinton's Foundation Rcvd - a $31.3 million donation from cashman Mr. Giustra,
with an addl $100 MILLION PLEDGE

4. Bill should pull about $20 MILLION after he finishes his business with Yucaipa

5. And He pulls $10 million a year from his partnership with Ron Burkle and the Emir of Dubai


Shoot who needs donations from the small
people when you got a Husband that's
hoooooked UP.

More info. on what that Tax Return might
look like?
Just Google it like I did -

FOX, WASH.POST, etc... everybody's been
covering how they get their money...they just do in "spurts" so it all doesn't "come together"...


Posted by: themist | March 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that Clinton shines only when she picks up mud. She should get into a ring to do some mud wrestling. She is of no substance and full of bull.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | March 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

You Hillary supporters are practiced in the art of projection, recognizing your own negative qualities on your opponent but blind to them in yourself. George Bush accusing Democrats of being devisive or the moral posturing of creeps like Foley and Craig are the best examples.

I crack up every time one of you rants that we all think Obama is the Messiah, we are a cult. Nonsense. I am impressed by the way Obama conducts himself, with dignity and humanity. That is what I will vote for. You Clintonoids are the ones who are displaying "true believer" behavior. You talk like she's the second coming of Elizabeth I.

I believe the position of President of the United States should require a certain level of dignity. George Bush failed the requirement miserably and Hillary is failing it now.

The world is in the shape it's in, largely because it is incredibly difficult for truly decent people to achieve high national office. Obama has demonstrated decency at nearly every turn.

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

I am not that young either, and celebrate to find someone who can laugh without remorses. My pleasure!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama just gave Hillary a good poke in the ribs and nobody even saw it. Ms. Power just took one for the team. It's all upside for Obama. She publicly called Clinton a monster then fell on her sword. Obama looks good because he can say "I don't coutenance that sort of thing in my campaign" and judging by many of the posts here, the topic of whether or not Hillary is a monster is likely to be debated on the talking head shows for the next several days.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

And trace, I have voted in every election since Eisenhower (I told you I was old), and I have begun to think that no matter who is in or what party is in, it makes not much difference. Sad but true. Oh for a viable third party, or term limits.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

LOL. I agree! You see, it's easy to build consensus :)

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

trace, I agree. But if we vote by qualifications, Clinton, Obama, McCain, I'm afraid I will have to go with "none of the above". LOL

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Samantha Powers was only saying aloud what the majority of America already feels. Hillary Clinton will do anything, say anything, run over anyone she needs to in the quest of her one and only priority: personally being in power. I say that as a Democrat who has defended her in the past, but I just cannot abide this woman any longer. She is poison for our party, poison for our country, and just an all-around bad idea.

There are many, MANY great woman leaders in America today, and I have no doubt we will have our first woman president soon. I just hope and pray that it is not HRC. She is absolutely NOT what this country needs. I hope my fellow Dems will see that in time. Remember, Rush Limbaugh wants the same thing you do, Clinton supporters. That alone should sober you up and make you think.

Posted by: B2O2 | March 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

You have a point, but let's just say there is a lot of noise in the numbers so we shouldn't bet on them. Why don't we start discussing qualifications such as who has more sense of humor, don't you agree?

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

trace, there is no way of knowing who voted for what in Texas. The delegates are based on the way the state senate district went in 2004 and 2006. A latino district could get 4 delegates and a black one next door could get 2 with the same percentage of win. Clinton could get the popular vote and not win in delegates in Texas based on past elections. Crazy? Yes, but the Democratic party set it up.
The voters did NOT set it up this way. The national and state DEMO parties set it up to help Jimmy Carter long ago and have not changed it. Too late now.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Thoughts for the commenters:

For Post by: fairbalanced | March 7, 2008 07:53 PM:
Old Geesers are old because they don't say dumb things that make them look stupid.
I'm an up and coming "old geeser" who still hopes Obama's-I call him "Obyone" (as in Star Wars)-superior leadership and engagement skills will ultimately win out...

For Post by: con_crusher | March 7, 2008 08:30 PM
George W. Bush, who's crooked as a barrel of snakes and has the IQ of a Texas rock.
Quit insulting Texas rocks!

Posted by: ez4ryder | March 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

The race implication is yours not mine. Mine is a demographic analyisis as yours. Obama got a high percentage of votes from white male votes that probably came from republicans, not from women or hispanics as you correctly point out. What worries me is that the republicans have taken advantage of the fact that democrats allow them to chose who they want to fight.

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

It's 3:00 o'clock in the morning and the red phone rings. A crisis is brewing in some part of the world. Who's going to protect your sleeping kids?
"Hello, it's Bill"
"Yea, I just got in, now that was some experience, I'll tell you about it some time."
"No she's sleeping, can I help you?"
"Wait a second, I need some Advil."
"No, I don't want to get her up and have her see me like this, let's let her sleep."
"I'm the night person here."

Posted by: bmc | March 7, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The difficulty with the Obama campaign appears to be too many not ready for prime time players flapping their lips to either the foreign media or representatives of foreign governments. Any campaign knows there is only one voice and one message.

Samantha Power didn't get it and she is gone. Good riddance. This is not an academic exercise. Where was her brain, obviously it was not connected to her mouth.

Austan Goolsbee didn't get it either, but he is still involved in the campaign. He needs to go and shut his mouth. He is not the candidate.

Sorry folks, but both of these idiots were on the campaign with the support of the candidate. He and he alone is responsible for this mess.

Posted by: NewEra | March 7, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I has only began to read the comments and felt that I had to say something. A representative of the Canadian government said the statement about 'my comments re NAFTA are for the campaign and not what I will do if elected' were from the Clinton camp and not the Obama camp. Smell the coffee! She will do anything underhanded to get elected and that is also the kind of president she will be as well. She was for NAFTA before she was against it and after she was against it as well.

Posted by: sjdenny | March 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse



Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China

March 7, 2008

By Jim McElhatton - The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

A spokesman for the William J. Clinton Foundation declined to identify the buyer who was willing to pay so much for a struggling company's stock, saying only that the transaction was handled by a securities broker. It occurred seven months before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The spokesman, Ben Yarrow, declined last week to say whether Mr. Clinton knew about the Chinese government's connection to Accoona or the felony fraud conviction of one of the company's founders.

"President Clinton gave a speech; he did not endorse a product," Mr. Yarrow said.

The $700,000 capital gains was listed on the tax returns of Mr. Clinton's foundation that were reviewed by The Washington Times.

The lack of disclosure about the buyer and the general activities of former presidents' foundations troubles some ethics experts. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 7, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Now, if you want to talk vote by race, take a look at the Latino population. They will be the majority in Texas soon. So the white vote has nothing to do with Texas being "Bush Country"

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Trace, what racist comment are you trying to make? Blacks make up only a small percent of the voters in Texas, something like 17 percent.

What are you trying to say??
Voters in Texas are not registered by party, we can vote for whoever we want in the general election, no matter how we voted in the primaries or caucuses. So no votes can be taken and given to McCain. No one knows who was Republican before voting in the Democratic primary.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, sure I guess the texan white vote has nothing to do with the fact that is Bush country

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

""My problem? The one who will face a big problem with these phony numbers is Obama when republican votes for him are deducted and added to Mc Cain, in the remote case that he is nominated""

Except in Texas, there is no way to know if you are Republican or Democrat before you vote. You are not registered by party. And we can vote any way we wish in the national election. Sorry.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

In Texas Obama got a loud and clear message from non republican whites, women and hispanics, no matter what the delegate count says: he is not selling his wonder cookies!

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

auntbeth. I fully agree with you. Most of the thousands of voters waiting in the cold at the caucuses asked the same thing. Why are we here?? Because, if we voted in the primary, we should also vote in the caucus. That is the way it is set up by the Democratic party in Texas. So we waited out the confusion and voted. The results, Obama wins the most delegates in Texas. Why the media hasn't reported that, I don't know.
Nobody in the party, even knows how to change things from what I can find out. It haqs not mattered before. The last caucus I attended in Texas had five people. There were probably 500 at the one this year. Unreal.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

My problem? The one who will face a big problem with these phony numbers is Obama when republican votes for him are deducted and added to Mc Cain, in the remote case that he is nominated

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Eliminate all caucuses?? That would eliminate some states.

I wonder why Obama wins in caucuses? Could it be that voters don't want to be seen voting for Clinton. Hmmmmm.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

wly34, you're right, the caucuses are within the rules. Never denied it.

I said the Texas versions let us see quite clearly how badly they represent the popular will.

Eliminate for 2012. Relic of bygone age when the parties didn't ask for public input into the nomination process.

Posted by: auntbeth | March 7, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

"Why don¡t you try to convince the small number of Texans that voted for Hillary? After all, for Obamites people don't matter, what matters is the delegate count, right?

Say what?? Make some sense. The primary vote went to Clinton. The caucus vote added the winning delegates to Obama. Here we vote twice, if you wish. Sorry about your problem.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

rtrecker akes an interesting point.

Perfect example of extreme negative campaigning by Obama proxies.

And you wonder why Clinton is responding?


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

Quote: "Also, the caucus in Texas shows that the pledged delegate count is hardly democratically based. Eliminate all caucuses for 2012. They are ridiculous."

The national democratic party set it up in Texas to help Jimmy Carter win. It has never mattered before. Now it came back to bite them. I live in Texas and I voted twice as we have done for years. The Republican vote is not set up this way and no delegates are elected in their caucus (which is attended by practically no one). It is so easy to be a Republican voter in Texas and so hard to be a Democratic voter. BUT, is was set up by the party, so live with it.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse


Why don¡t you try to convince the small number of Texans that voted for Hillary? After all, for Obamites people don't matter, what matters is the delegate count, right?

Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

1. Today Barack Obama is running a presidential campaign based on hope and change. Yet with such undisputably good and lofty reasons to run for the presidency of the United States, he has been called a "hope monger". About his uplifting speeches about hope, Clinton accused him of plagiarizing his speeches.

When Obama offered his public service credentials while working in Chicago instead of as a high priced lawyer, Clinton accused him of having ties to a 'slumlord'.

2. When Obama asks for transparancy and public release of tax returns he is called a member of the infamous Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy by the Clinton campaign. You sorry americans allow this. After all, transparancy if for us, the citizens of the United States. We must have information to make a decisioin on the candidates.

3. When asked about releasing her white house itineries to allow the public to determine if she has the experience she claims - she refuses or equivocates. and calles Obama "ill-prepared to be president."

4. When asked to release her tax returns to the public as Obama has requested and has done, she has refused and now equivocate by saying maybe by April 15th.

5. When asked about fairness and if Michigan and Florida's banned votes should count (Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan) she could care less about rules and fairness. Clinton wants to change the rules and count those delegates. It's all about her, if it means the absence of rules - so what. Rules don't apply to her - like the rules that all citizens must abide by. Yes, including you. Why???

6, While Obama states he will abide by the decision of the Democratic Party, when asked to work out a fair resolution to the banned Michigan and Florida primaries Clinton has told U.S. News and World Report that she opposes any sort of do-over for Florida and she would not accept it if Michigan were to hold a caucus. So much for her ability to resolve issues.

7. Clinton will stop of nothing, do anything, will observe no limits to what she will do win the presidential election. See how long you stay out of jail if you rob a bank to feed your family. Any 12 year old knows you can't justify means for ends. And she readily admits it. If this means destroying her opponent, or destroying what he stands for and in the process destroy what may be America's only hope at decency and humanity in this presidential campaign- she will do it.

4. Now I ask you, does Hillary Clinton deserve, no - cry out - to be called "a monster" or better yet "A Hitler."

5. Samantha Power is the founding executive director of the Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. She won a 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction for "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide." With credentials like this has Samantha Paul crossed over the line by describing Clinton "a monster" or doing all American citizens a great service by bearing witness to the truth and at the same time calling to attention to the pathetic state of America, land of the free and home to political monsters. The fact is that if a Clinton can exist in our society it is because of you. All of us citizens. It is something all americans should be ashamed of. You deserve a Clinton.

Posted by: doc1400 | March 7, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

""sorry Abs but it doesn't work that way, they don't add election and caucus reults together for delegates, nice try though.

Sorry, but it works that way in Texas. We vote twice. If you voted in the primary, you can vote again in the caucus that evening, which we did by the thousands.
Obama won the most delegates in Texas.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Okay, let's start, the AP story citing the Clinton NAFTA connection with Canada also said she had no comment.

BS: Full and flat denial and even posted on their website, so the story was wrong at the outset. The Canadians have also denied the story. And what does that mean? Canada has to do a full investigation because with so many people saying, no it didn't happen, of course there's a theory it just HAS to be true. What a hoot.

As for double standard--- honey, there's a line you can't cross. Powers crossed it. And if you want a comment off the record, make sure you say that first.

Although, I think it's an interesting insight into the reality of the "politics of hope." What are they "changing"? Blaming the Clintons? LOL, that's not "new"?.

Also, the caucus in Texas shows that the pledged delegate count is hardly democratically based. Eliminate all caucuses for 2012. They are ridiculous.

Posted by: auntbeth | March 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is that, like all of the companies he bankrupted as CEO, George W. Bush has run America into the ground. The pathetic 1/3 of the country that still supports him, is comprised mostly of wingnut billionaires, fundamentalists, and rednecks. It remains to be seen who will get the Dem. nomination, but both Obama and Hillary would certainly be an improvement. Politicians will be politicians, but they certainly would not become entangled in corruption and cater to wingnut partisans. George W. Bush is a good campaigner, but is simply too indolent to run a company or country properly. If you want more of the same, vote for McCain, the "maverick" who now grabs his ankles for wingnut groups he once criticized as marginal.

Posted by: con_crusher | March 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I would argue that it was the moral and ethical lapses of the Clinton administration that paved the way for two terms of George W. Bush. In the final analysis, that may be the Clinton administrations most enduring legacy. If Hillary manages to slither her way into the presidency, what type of right-wing ideologue abomination will we be doomed to suffer after she's gone?

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

The foreign press, especially the BBC reporter who interviewed Samantha Power, conduct superb interviews compared to what I see in the U.S. He consistently pressed Ms. Power to explain or elucidate Obama's rhetorical words and claims with those stated in her book.

Her inexperience showed as she consistently back-tracked and tried to put forward the best light on Obama's promises, claims and words. But under questioning, Obama's promises and claims started to become more nuanced and not as clear cut as they sound when Obams booms them out in rallies.

All should listen to her interview linked below.

Posted by: David2007 | March 7, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Quote: ""When will the national media start reporting that Obama actually won Texas with more delegates?""

Ain't it the truth. With today's figures, the caucus vote leaves Obama as the winner in Texas. Report that, media.

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

response to: (hgogo | March 7, 2008 04:42 PM)

It's Curious. George W. Bush is the sitting president, yet you didn't mention him in your biased tirade. Obama's no worse than George W. Bush, who's crooked as a barrel of snakes and has the IQ of a Texas rock. Obama isn't squeaky clean - few politicians are. But Obama has done an oustanding job at coming correct on most issues that could become problematic. He donated the Rezko's contributions to charity. He canned two employees who he perceived made personal attacks on Clinton. The main difference between Obama and Bush Jr. is that the former admits when he's erred, and tries to rectify the situation. THAT'S the main reason why 2/3 of the country disapproves of W., while purportedly 90% of Obama's contributors are sending $100 or less. It's a free country, but you have very little credability there when your criticism is obviously partisan. Understand?

Posted by: con_crusher | March 7, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse






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

And this is how stupid our politics is. It really is foolish to believe that a plan developed to deal with conditions as they are today will absolutly be the right plan in 10 months when condiitons may have changed. Come on Hillary supporters, that's how George Bush operates. "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts".

Also, the "conventional wisdom" that talking with our enemies is naive because it legitimizes them is positively assinine and is the type of thinking that rules high school cliques. How on earth do you expect to be able to influence people with whom you disagree if you will not even communicate with them? That approach worked fabulously in Iran and North Korea, didn't it.

I know politics is a dirty business, but please let us try and be a little less sophomoric in how we decide to cast our vote.

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Follow the money-- it is the best way to know where power lies and who is lying. Clintons, give it up! We're waiting.

Posted by: hotpoet66 | March 7, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Arguably, the largest voting block in America is stupid people. Republicans have long known this and exploited it to the hilt. Now Hillary has joined in. The long decline of the Roman empire began when Caesar bought the plebs and exploited their ignorance and excitability to wield as a cudgel against the Senate. Will history repeat itself (again) or will reason carry the day?

Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"fairbalanced, you are not going to win over older Americans to the Obama campaign by calling them "Old Geezers". You do a good man of heart a dis-service.

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

"Wake up young people who so blindly follow Obama"


Wake up Geezers who are scared of anything new and so vote for a corrupt, ball-breaking, traditional politico who is already detested by 65% of the American people and can never win the general election.

Wake up Geezers who don't have to live with the bankrupt political future they are perpetuating. Who pass it on to their children and grandchildren just like they pass on the national debt and the broken economy.

Wake up Geezers to the fact that if this campaign is in a tie, it is the young who should get their way... not the old who will die soon anyway.

Wake up, foolish Geezers. Get out of your rut of Old Politics and Republican-style attacks on Hope and Change. Wake up to Obama!

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

BWAAA! Welcome to the majors, Barack! Looks like your "dream team" are showing their true colors -- complete lack of experience. No time for amateur hour in the White House!

Posted by: RedSoxJK | March 7, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rhelms

"sorry Abs but it doesn't work that way, they don't add election and caucus reults together for delegates, nice try though."

The Texas two-step includes the Primary which determines 2/3rd of the delegates and the Caucus which determines the remaining 1/3rd. When the total number of delegates from Texas are counted, if the current numbers hold, Obama will end up with more Texas delegates than Clinton. Count it as one, or count the Primary and Caucus as separate in which they may end up splitting the State but the name of the game is delegates.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 7, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

With her comments today, Ms.Power gave monsters everywhere a bad name.

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 7, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

The spokesperson for the American public the AMERICAN MEDIA should be very concerned about Hillary Clinton's lack of response to a Barack Obama simple and fair request - the immediate disclosure of Senator Clinton's income tax records.

Where are the truth seekers of America? I say get with it now and save your country's future from any possible sham drudgery.

The common sense in the collective conscience of our world's democratic peoples would dictate such action as being your duty, and you of all, the MEDIA, know that to be true.

May God bless America in guiding her to a resounding and absolute truth this coming November.

The world is watching and trusting you will do "right" by us all.

Posted by: mikelliott | March 7, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand why Power had to resign; 40% of the country is on record agreeing with her.

Posted by: Ethicist | March 7, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the fraud. He had a free ride starting on January 1 and it is just now, this past week, ending. That means he has to actually have some real answers and be called on just like the other two candidates! And as far as NAFTA, Clinton has the WRITTEN memo. So much for Obama saying it never happened. The more you know about Obama, the more you know not to vote for him. Yes, WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Posted by: Texan2007 | March 7, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

sorry Abs but it doesn't work that way, they don't add election and caucus reults together for delegates, nice try though.

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

Posted by: MAUFIT
"Another one of Obama's lies, speeches, and empty promises. Naftagate and now Iraqgate. We know you now Obama. Wake up young people who blindly follow Obama!"

You mean another one of Clinton's distortions (also known as lies).

"Canada Says TV Story on Obama NAFTA Deception is 'Untrue'"
By Terence P. Jeffrey and Susan Jones Editor in Chief and Senior Editor
February 28, 2008

Senator Obama's demographics includes younger voters but it is asinine to imply that only young voters have supported him. In Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia and D.C. he cut deeply into Clinton's supposed demographics so quit spreading distortions and political gossip.

As a matter of fact, right now Sen. Obama is winning the Texas Caucus by 12% with over 41% precincts reporting. If the Caucus results hold, he will have won Texas with more delegates than Clinton! Of course if that happens she'll try to change the rules after the game has been played. It is her way of doing things.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

george, read my 5:17 post.

Gay Wired is saying Hillary demanded Power resignation, you know what if she can do that, then I definitely want her running this country. Word gets out Obama foreign policy personnel says H is a "monster" Obama personnel resigns- all this in a day. The woman gets it done, no ifs, ands or buts. Go Hillary

Posted by: rhelms | March 7, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has always said that he will surround himself with people who may not always agree with him but he will listen.

Most academics are proud of their own area of expertise and may be a bit naive about newspapers or media that ask them to get together for one thing (Powers was/is on a book tour in England).

In my opinion, regarding Iraq, her answer was a feasible and educated one. How can one declaratively answer a hypothetical, future tense without sounding ridiculous?

It might have been better had she pulled out a crystal ball and waved her hands over it.

Whoever wins the White House will have a vastly different Iraq than we have now.

Regarding NAFTAgate, if you watch this clip from the oldest and most venerated Cdn. TV networks, you will see that Obama's explanation was substantiated.

Unlike the American press who do not make the distinction that the Cdn. Consulate in Chicago approached a Professor of Economics for a meeting, the Canadians have.

The Globe & Mail in Canada has QUOTED Harper's top aide as stating that it was the Clinton campaign who called to reassure the Cdn. gov't.

MEMOgate, as the Canadians might call it, won't be going away any time soon.

Outside from the obvious problems caused by Senator Clinton aligning herself & endorsing Senator McCain's "bona fides" while she tears into her Democratic opponent, Senator Obama, the Republican attack machine can far more easily blame and USE her as an excuse for any dirt that they want to throw covertly.

Today on CNN Morning, a Republican strategist accused the Clinton campaign of creating a Rezko website and gave the website domain.

When my son was young, one of my primary responsibilities was to teach him that his choices had consequences and that he needed to consider the consequences BEFORE he acted on his choice.

Senator Clinton is attempting to change the rules; or, perhaps it is more accurate to say that she & her campaign changes themselves as they go along.

I not only agree with Howard Dean, I applaude him. He is the wall that the Clintons' and their co-horts have not been able to crash through and they are out to destroy his credibility.

However, both my son and Howard Dean know that choices have consequences.

Both states were repeatedly warned that they were not to move up their primaries and if they did so, there would be consequences for violating the rules.

However, in a sense of fairness to all candidates, I would like to see each candidate's 2004,2005,2006 and after April 15th 2007 Income Tax returns.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Senator Clinton nor McCain have done so yet.

Also, for the sake of transparency, I would like to see EACH OF THEM make public their Appointment Books for the same time frame.

Since Senator Clinton is touting 35 years of experience, AND loaned her campaign 5 million from their JOINT account, I think it is only fair to ask for Phone Logs, Meeting Memos, etc from her White House years.

Also, since Senator McCain has no problem SAYING he is a Lobbying Reformist BUT has his Senate Office & his campaign being run by Lobbyists, I think that he should be willing to have those parties provide a list of clients that they lobby for, so that the watchdog groups can monitor any abnormalities.

When the unflattering NY Times story broke, McCain asked and answered ONLY ONCE, just hours after the story broke and has refused since.

The Washington Post and other publications have done follow up articles.

This goes MORE to McCain's JUDGMENT than any particular wrongdoing.

And, since Senator Clinton also takes both Lobbyist and PAC monies, a similar list would be needed to provide FULL transparency.

For this educated voter, there is a VAST difference between DOUBLE speak and DOUBLE doings and actual, factual information for the voters to elect their President.

Now, if ONLY the Press would attempt to win a Pulitzer instead of reporting sound bites (the Cable news networks have that arena sewn up), the American public would be much better served.

Posted by: DariMD | March 7, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

In 1984 Mondale asked "Where's the beef?".

In 2008 we should all ask, "Where's the tax return?".

What is Clinton worried we will see?

Posted by: george25 | March 7, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Jesus Christ! How much blind support do you people have for this man? Please take off the rose colored glasses and wake up.
I find it funny that Obama says he will remove troops from Iraq and yet his foreign policy advisor, a very educated woman who I'm willing to bet has more experience in foreign policy than him, (since that's what she has a degree in!) goes on the record as saying that 16 months is a good estimate. And nothing definite.
The Obama campaign always tries to deflect the issue to Clinton instead of taking responsibility. But then again he's not good at that since he couldn't even bother to show up for a committee (ironically on foreign relations) because he was too busy planning his presidency.
Take a break, Obama. Get some real experience. Which hopefully will enable you to hire better advisors.

Posted by: hotep17 | March 7, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I am NOT talking about the caucus in Texas, which just FYI, has existed in Texas for 20 YEARS, but never needed to be used! And Clinton was against it and rightfully so! NOONE even knew what to do at the caucuses! It was a joke! And it should be unconstitutional as well! Few people could show up tp vote at the caucus. They started usually after 8:00 pm and lasted till whenever! And they had already voted ONCE! But so what! Disenfranchise us All! Tell Texans our one vote counts only 60% and the 2nd vote, in a caucus, counts 35%! The last 5% is the delegates count. Yes, it is crazy! And 100% unconstitutional, too! We should only have to go vote one time just like everybody else in the United States!

But I am talking about the way the delegates are counted, rather in a Primary or a Caucus THROUGHOUT EVERY STATE in the United States! And it is as I said! Almost 2 to 1 in minority districts! When you keep hearing CNN during their Map talks say, "More people, more delgates" every time they come to the large urban areas that may have a larger African American community, it is not this, but it is due to the DNC delegate counts being biased, and counting almost double to other districts/counties throughout the same state. They just do not want to have the conversation! Again, check with Chis Matthews, a known Obama supporter. Check with George Steponopolous. I do recall he brought this up on ABC on Super Tuesday. It should be one man one vote as laid out in the United States Constitution! Not almost 2 to 1 in certain counties in ALL states for one select group of Americans.

Posted by: Texan2007 | March 7, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

LMBOOO!!!! YOU GUYS CRACK ME UP SOMETIMES.."SEAHAG"??!! LOL. I think I'll just stick with Monster..

Mrs. Clintons Bank Roll, here's a lil insight:

Hillary's Comm. Director - Howard Wolfson
Howard Wolfson - Partner with Glover Park
Glover Park - $3,100,000 lobbying Income ('07)
Lobbyists/Employees of Glove.. - have given about craploads to Mrs. Hill, so far...
Bill pulled in $3.3 million by Info USA
Clinton's Foundation Rcvd - a $31.3 million donation from cashman Mr. Giustra, with an addl $100 MIL PLEDGE!
Bill should pull about $20 MIL after he finishes up with Yucaipa stuff
And He pulls $10 million a year from his partnership with Ron Burkle and the Emir of Dubai
Shoot who needs donations from the small people when you got a Husband that's hoooooked UP!
More info. on what that Tax Return might look like? Just Google it like I did - FOX, WASH.POST, etc... everybody's been covering how they get their money...
That "SEAHAG" comment reallly was

Posted by: themist | March 7, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

If Obama was any more effete he'd be PeeWee

Posted by: newagent99 | March 7, 2008 04:10 PM

Oh.. my.. GOD!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | March 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse


Bush - Clinton - Bush = 20 years

How old were you 20 years ago?

That is why the young people of voting age NEED CHANGE

Posted by: amitchel | March 7, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Texan2007, if you want to complain about the delegate rules being unfair, you should do some homework into who made those rules. Some of the most influential folks in that process who enthusiastically endorsed the current system are part of Hillary's campaign staff.

To pick Texas out of it, Hillary's current Texas campaign manager was a driving force behind the split primary/caucus system, and one of her top campaign aides, Ickes, was part of approving it in the DNC.

Posted by: wesc | March 7, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

What worries me is that it is too late for civility to return to this Democratic nomination process. The time passed when Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Pelosi, Gore, etc., etc., could have endorsed one candidate or the other. Had they, either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would have won the nomination by now.

Posted by: willowbarcelona | March 7, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters keep saying that Obama is a head in the delegate count. The fact is that the "delegate count" is not fair in th first place! The DNC changed those rules, too. Back in the 1980's they changed the rules so that minority districts, with large percentages of African Americans, would count almost a
2 to 1 delegate count over other districts. This is throughout the US. So if you keep wondering why she wins large states by 4% like Texas and California, it is because of this. Unfair? You bet! We have many minorities besides African American in this country. But only they benefit. This should be unconstitutional. The constitutional amendment states pretty clearly one man one vote! But that is not the way the DNC has set up the delegate count in the popular vote! Obama is benifitting from this injustice. And not a word is ever discussed by Obama or his supporters! Only once have I heard it mentioned, and that was on Hardball with Chris Matthews. He asked a DNC rep the DNC set up Hillary for failure? The rep danced around the answer. Again, Obama does not discuss this! Instead, He and his supporters cry foul when even discussing Florida and Michigan and the right of Super delegates to cast their vote as they wish. It is truly unbelievable that the DNC would disenfranchise so many of us throughout the United states that are voting for Clinton! Take a look at the districts throughout the US. So Obama supporters need not discuss "Obama not getting his delegate count". What an injustice this is and continues to be to Hillary Clinton and her supporters!

Posted by: Texan2007 | March 7, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillarys smear tactics before the most recent primaries 'Naftagate' was monstrous...and more insulting and incredably more important than Powers comments...Hillary nefariously solicited votes in a manor outside of acceptable boundries. Her lack of remorse speaks ill of her...I believe she intentionally pushes the bounderies without thought that perhaps those that have been supporting may feel betrayed, belittled, and used. The next wave could very well be indignant Clinton backers tired of deflecting too much kitchen sink themselves.

Posted by: julie6 | March 7, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

It's too bad Obama's online supporters across the internet can't be called to account for their hate-mongering, abusive attacks on Hillary Clinton. But I guess if you can't support your candidate on his merits, you typically resort to the worst kind of mudslinging.

Posted by: ichief | March 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The issue is not Hillary Clinton. Samantha Powers is a very intelligent and bright lady albeit short tempered. She ran into trouble with the vague Obama and could not control her frustration and took it out on Hillary. I am sure Powers will go back to teaching and writing. She is better off elsewhere. It all comes with the stress of supporting a candidate who does not understand and absorb the breadth of knowledge that she has with foreign policy. He wanted everything to be around his saying no to the Iraq war in 2002 instead of defining a proper policy for the future.

Posted by: gunducosmo | March 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Moral: Don't call Hillary Clinton a monster or she will eat you alive.

Posted by: PaulTinker | March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has never publicly denied eating babies. Think about it!

Posted by: dcespy | March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The truth hurts. Hillary Clinton is way worse than a monster. Both Clinton's are corrupt beyond George Bush's imagination and they must be stopped ASAP.

Posted by: LAJonathan | March 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Awhile back when Bill Clinton wasn't president yet,Hillary Clinton got enraged because Bill didn't win an election and hollered at the man responsible for Bill's campaign and shouted,"YOU JEWISH BLANK BLANK IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT". This to me shows exactly what kind of person HIllary Clinton really is. It even showed a picture of HIllARY doing this. I am really surprised that no one has brought this upfront so the public will again be reminded of what character Hillary has. This definitly was a racist comment and showed no respect at all. If she cannot control here actions when she is angry, how can people expect her to hold her temper and control herself in very stressful positions? Sorry I can't remember the date or where I read this. Maybe The Washington Post can find this and and help voters understand what this women is really about.

Posted by: WindWardHawk_1 | March 7, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaking the truth is so yesterday. Don't you all know that to win the presidency all one needs is a well-repeated lie and a smile?

Bush: Great Job Brownie! :-)

Bush: Mission Accomplished! :-)

Cheney: Last throes! :-)

B. Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman! :-)

H. Clinton: Obama's subordinate secretly assured Canada re: NAFTA. :-)

H. Clinton: I am *NOT* a monster. :-)

See? Not-True become Yes-True when a smiley is added.

Posted by: egc52556 | March 7, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Samantha Powers knows that Obama's Iraq policy is vague and without substance. She was trying to give it some credance. Clinton has promised to start combat troop withdrawals in 90 days while Obama says that he will withdraw combat troops in 16 months -- there is a big difference between the two. Clinton's first steps would be to talk to commanders on the ground -- Obama does not make any mention of this. That argument is what Powers is bringing into Obama's policy. If you compare the Iraq policy in both their websites you can see the difference. Obama just like his speeches is rather vague and gets into trouble when he is asked to define it. I am sure it is hard for his experts since they know that there are these gaping holes in his talk but could try to define it and have him say it is not what he meant. It is a hard place to be just as Samantha Powers found out.

Posted by: gunducosmo | March 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Ms Power sounds more like an Obama blogger than a Harvard professor.

Posted by: redhiker | March 7, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Samantha Power. Hillary Clinton needs some professional help to get past this ego-driven meanness that makes her willing to do ANYTHING to get her way. In that sense at least, Samantha is right. Hillary's ruthlessness DOES make her a monster. And we've had quite enough of monsters (whose lies are beyond blatant) in the White House. For this reason if for no other, is why I support Barack Obama. He may not be a perfect human being but at least he's shown a conscience. Hillary NEVER has.

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 7, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ermias.kifle: "55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote
She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED."

Good, because she won't get them--among other groups' votes she won't get. There are, of course, more uneducated people (such as yourself) than educated people in the U.S., so she had a head start in the campaign. But many people have been educating themselves (you're obviously not one of them) and as a result have put Obama 100 or so delegates ahead of Clinton at this point.

Posted by: edwcorey | March 7, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Turns out it was actually a Clinton advisor who made the NAFTA comments and as far as the Iraq pull out goes, he will have to react to current conditions as any truthful person would admit. He does have a goal of 16 months whih is a lot more reasonable than Hillary's 60 days. But we wouldn't be in this mess if certain people had not authorized this ill conceived war and trusted George Bush. Hillary supporters are so blinfd to the fact that she is a political "monster". She enjoys destroying people and fighting her opponents. That's why she's in politics. She was quoted as saying "this is the fun part of politics". She will say anything and her gullible followers believe her. Wake up people before you allow her to destroy the Democratic party. She made it sound yesterday like she would prefer McCain to Obama. She is Bush Light, a stubborn partisan who will say anything to get elected. If Obama wins the nomination, she is more likely to run as McCain's VP rather than Obama's. I never vote Republican but certainly will if she wins. She epitomizes all that is wrong with American politics today.

Posted by: jjacques1 | March 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

When will the national media start reporting that Obama actually won Texas with more delegates?

Why didn't the media even mention Clinton's "Plantgate" during the reporting of Obama's so-called plagiarism?

If Obama's use of a paragraph from an advisor's speech is newsworthy, why isn't Clinton's use of material from two different sources?

Why hasn't the media acknowledging that Obama won more delegates in Nevada?

Why hasn't the media asked this hard question of Bill Clinton: You suggested that your wife would quit the campaign if she lost Texas, and Obama won more delegates in Texas than her -- why hasn't she conceded the ract to Obama?

Why hasn't the media asked HRC this hard question: Your husband suggested that you would quit the campaign if you lost Texas, and we know that Obama gained more delegates in Texas than you -- why shouldn't you take your husband's advice?

Why the double-standard with the HRC campaign's use of the Ken Starr reference. Which is worse, a monster or Ken Starr?

Why did former Clinton Communications Director and Campaign Aide George Stephanopoulos play Hillary's "3 a.m." ad about 11 times in the three days before the Texas and Ohio primaries during his appearances on "This Week," "ABC World News," "Good Morning America" and "Nightline"?

Clinton has been getting the good press, and she hasn't faced hard questions -- especially since she is the mudslinger in the race. She is not a monster, but she is running her campaign like a monster would.

Posted by: thetortmaster | March 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

McCAINE asks O'bama (in his ad)what he will do when phone will ring @ 3am"?
O'bama replies "if phone rings @ 3 am, at least I will be able to get-up from my bed and think how to resolve the issue peacefully but I do not know whether MCcaine will be able to hear the phone ring and then whether he will be able to get-up to take a phone without help?????
Same for Hillary: If phone rings, she will be able to hear the ring but who knows Bill will allow her to get-up and take the phone? then the real President Bill will decide NOT HIllary!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: citysoilverizonnet | March 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I believe Hilary Clinton is intentionally destroying the Democratic Party. What her cult following, some of whom posted here, do not seem to understand is that a brokered convention that could lead to her nomination can NOT happen after all the attacks on Obama's character, without her nomination looking undemocratic in principle; this assures an easy McCain victory. And continuing the onslaught of negativity will probably also assure a McCain vistory over Obama, should he win the nomination. And there is now no longer any possibility of a ticket with both Obama and Clinton because Clinton has gotten personally assaultive.
Clinton sees the campaign as a series of small tactical victories; she has either completely lost sight of the larger strategy - a Democratic win in November - or she has abandoned it in order to remain a 'player' in a McCain presidency.
Cynicis who think this is all 'politics as usual' seem blind to both the hurt that is being caused and the sheer amount of tricks and invective being used. Although many Obama followers are comparing a brokered convention with that of 1968, the last convention of either party that went as bad as this one could was the Republican convention of 1964, when Rockefeller stalked out of the hall with his delegates rather than support Goldwater.
If the Clinton supporters could possibly think that was somebody's victory, either Goldwater's or rockefeller's, they have no understanding of history.
Yet that seems to be the path they are headed down.
And one final note - Shame on the press for going along for this ride as if it were mere entertainment! - with the future of the country at stake, you'd rather have a wrestling match than an honest campaign. You are trivializing not only politics, but yourselves.

Posted by: EmmanuelWinner | March 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Samantha Power's face sorta reminds me of a baboon's ass.

Just an observation - I'm sure she's emminently qualified as a foreign policy advisor to the magic negro.

Posted by: hillaryclintonspenis | March 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

What a joke. Look at all those pea brains
Obama supporters. If it was Hilary saying
that Obama was a "Monster". They will come after her like all hell broke loose.
They will forever says that Hilary is racist and so on.

Wake up guys and gals. Be matured, the sad truth of OBAMA is coming to haunt you people. Go Macain Go...

Posted by: patgoh878 | March 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"at any cost" Clinton sells out the dignity of her supporters ...her word games 'twist and shout' ...lies and behind her "wink wink" laughs at her supporters with glee at the power with which she manipulates them. To herself she thinks " my precious fools' my trophys come to me, my lies are as good as truth as long as you vote for me... my lies are my truth, I am the best Monster,I mean, you know..candidate"

Posted by: julie6 | March 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

The facts are as follows:
Hillary is best suited to be President

Obama has made his candidacy about race

Hillary has fielded the fly balls from the
press, now it's Obama's turn

Obama is whining about the questions being
asked by the press, and walking away from
any he doesn't want to answer

Hillary doesn't stand up to pee, so just
because Obama released his tax info he
thinks Hillary should, silly boy.

Posted by: rhelms | March 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Yo. What's this about Puerto Rico switching their Caucus to a Primary? That's a laugher. Are Clinton's cohorts so afraid of the Obama ground-machine that they are trying to shield her from another primary defeat? I love how often Clinton and her supporters try to move the goal posts.

"I know we agreed not to seat Florida and Michigan," she says, "but now I want them seated."

"It isn't important how many delegates you have," she says, "it's more important who has won the big states."

Now her superdelegates in PR are going to make damned sure that they send as many delegates her way as they possible can.

Posted by: NittyGritty08 | March 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Was this supposed to be a reference to an evil, puppy-killing monster or one of the "Groovy Ghoulies." I think the former. So what's the big dealio?

Posted by: thetortmaster | March 7, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

She is a monster. Obama's people get penalized for telling the truth while Hillary's get away with lies.

Hillary has managed to not only divide the country, but also to divide the Democratic Party. No wonder she is behind in the delegate count.

Posted by: n2itiveus | March 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has already cooked her own lying goose. Her NAFTA comments regarding Canadian journalists was as bold a lie as the WMD was about Iraq. Not presidential at all!!! Then she undercuts the Democratic party by announcing John MCCain would be a better President than Obama - the entire (D) party is down her perverbial throat and she is doomed to destruction by her own evil character. Bye bye Hillary!! Hello Obama!!

Posted by: Janet1 | March 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled that Hillary Clinton is not being called to task for the verbal abuse that her campaign associates have been laying upon Senator Obama.

Why is it that as soon as she whined that Obama received preferential treatment that suddenly she is treated with kid gloves. Mr. Wolfson should stepped down over his comments comparing Senator Obama to Ken Starr. Yes, Ms. Power's made an error in judgment, off the record, that the UK tabloid press published anyway. Mr. Wolfson made his appalling statement on national television. Mr. Obama himself has not stooped to levee insults and abuse against Hillary Clinton as she has done to him.

I do not believe that another Clinton in the White House will benefit this country. I do not believe that Mrs. Clinton can equate her years as a lawyer as providing any more experience than Mr. Obama's. Mrs. Clinton is claiming her husband's experience as her own. Under that scenario, perhaps Laura Bush should run as well. After all, she has the same 8 years of experience as a president's wife.

Posted by: kdplaskon | March 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Here's another example of Obama's campaign being short on specifics: exactly what kind of "monster" did Power suggest. Meanwhile, Clinton's campaign was SPECIFIC: they suggested that Obama like a "Ken Starr"-- certainly was meant to convey a specific type of monster, and demonstrate Clinton's depth and gravitas.

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

In Ohio, Obama won "ONLY" 5 out of 88 counties. Those 5 Ohio counties account for the majority of the "BLACK" vote, the only group of voters Obama won

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.
May Blacks (men) can't vote, because of the "CRIME" problem

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I am floored by the things the Hillary camp seizes on to exploit. Hillary knows that she too would have to access the situation in Iraq on "Day One" and act according to the way things are then. Obama's plan is a best case scenario of what he wants to do in Iraq. Samantha Power is an advisor giving her expert opinion on what she sees as the way it would be. This would be true for either Hillary or Obama. Does Hillary not think she would have to adjust her plan to the current situation in Iraq next January?

Hillary Clinton just says whatever makes her look good, not realizing that to a huge number of Americans, she will never look any better than the days of Whitewater, Travelgate, and Ken Starr. I'm amazed that Wolfson brought his name into the news again - didn't his investigations lead to Bill's impeachment? Somebody is in la la land if they think the American people can't make that association.

Posted by: Susan17177 | March 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics
Obama is a Sanjaya of American Politics

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Power is a very smart person and I love her views.

Yet another person somehow besmirched by the Clinton machine. It's uncanny, how do they do it?

Everyday I wake up wondering who would be sacrificed to the Clinton dicing machine today.

Now I know how the Republicans felt and why they hate Clinton so. And now I understand how adamant they are about not letting a Clinton back into the White House.

Posted by: NittyGritty08 | March 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

When the Clinton's finally release their tax returns that will likely be the political end for Hillary. If not then, the end will come when her papers as First Lady are released. Having recently watched the Movie "Hillary" I think that calling her a "monster" is being too kind. She is a monster. A monster of considerable, but questionable wealth.

Posted by: rickredshoes | March 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Some truth has emerged and Obama supporters react and rebel! There is no bias, only evidence that Obama has been coddled by the media.It's about time that Senator Clinton has been vindicated!

Posted by: shirleyavery | March 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08
Rezko / Obama 08

Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08
Slum Landlord and Drug Dealer 08

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary or McCain had called Obama a monster the story would be EVERYWHERE and last for weeks.

Posted by: freemason911 | March 7, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

55% to 60% white vote
65% to 70% Asian vote
60% to 65% Latino Vote

She doesn't need the Black vote to win.
The Black Vote is OVERRATED.

Posted by: ermias.kifle | March 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The Barack Obama campaign should establish a standard whereby it should be understand that if anyone associated with the campaign gives interviews to the press without a letter of authorization from the campaign management that that individual will be discharged and removed from the campaign. Senator Obama is getting in trouble, first in Canada and now with the BBC where people with big mouths but assoicated with the campaign are claiming to speak for the candidate, when clearly these individuals have no authorization to speculate on the candidate's stated policies. If anyone implies that Senator Obama does not mean exactly what he says, that individual should be removed from the Obama campaign immediately.

Posted by: burton_wilkins | March 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

what is obama said this..

hillary clinton is not a monster.............................."as far as i know"!!!

Posted by: catchsandy | March 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

So now Hillary is accusing Obama of being responsible as a President should, asking for counsel, and working toward a quick and responsible withdrawal instead of rushing things and messing up the world in order to fulfil a campaign promise. There's the stupid sort of consistency that hurt John Kerry last cycle, when he said he'd still vote for the war "knowing what we know now" simply to avoid appearing to flip-flop.

If I were Hillary, I would let things alone before more of the scandals in my life became public. There is clear evidence that her positions have changed on several issues with the political wind while Obama has been up front with information that usually ruins campaigns. I believe that all this fuss is weakening the Democratic Party and making life easier for McCain

Posted by: writethepower | March 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

More misrepresentations by the Clinton campaign. More distortions by the Clinton campaign. More attacks by the Clinton campaign. More desperation as the Clinton Campaign falls further and further behind in money, delegates and the polls. Obama has McCain beat EVEN in the big states.

Stop the Drama. Go Obama.
Obama/Richardson '08!!!

Posted by: thebobbob | March 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton is nominated I will vote for Nader. She is a Monster.

Posted by: salkateb | March 7, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I think people who find it shocking that either candidate may not pull out immediately are completely naive. Since when did we seriously expect any politician to hold to all their campaign promises? Clinton supports NAFTA as much as Obama does and neither want to get rid of it. Neither will get us out of Iraq immediately but the reason for voting for them is that they will get us out, and they will push for trade policies that stand for better labor and environmental standards. And yes, the Clinton ticket has multiple monsters - more reasons they don't want us looking in their closet.

Posted by: somua2 | March 7, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

And these are the peers who will be "advising" Senator Obama, the candidate who will change the face of american politics!! Get ready for the republicans...what are you going to call them??

Posted by: cbl0213 | March 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't disagree with Prof Power's remarks, but I'm shocked at her illiteracy. Does she really teach at a university?

Posted by: metzger | March 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Samantha Powers has studied and written about a lot of monsters, so she knows one when she sees one. What a shame was caught in a moment of candor. She is a brilliant women, and she'll be a tremendous asset in the Obama administration.

Posted by: WadeNYC | March 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was the most corrupt US President in the history or the country, and Hillary Clinton was our FIRST corrupt Fist Lady. Hillary skimmed money from the Rodham Tobacco Settlements, pocketed money form the pardons, and received kickbacks thru the Rose Law Firm. She should have been the last person to talk about land deals. Did she forget the free house that the Rose Law Firm kicked back to Bills mother from the Whitewater Development?

Posted by: rocheteau | March 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The 'monster' comment made by an unpaid adviser to Senator Obama was dumb. Ms. Power's has resigned. However, I found the suggestion that Tim Russert be shot during a conference call with Mark Penn, Jonathan Mantz, and other top advisers, after the Philadelphia debate, far more disturbing. BTW, Howard Wolfson comparing Senator Obama to Ken Starr is more than deceptive (far more troublesome than the 'monster' comment). Tim Russert asked Senator Clinton if she would release her Income Tax returns, during the Cleveland debate. I have that exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: "Senator Clinton, an issue of accountability and credibility. You have loaned your campaign $5 million. You and your husband file a joint return. You refuse to release that joint return, even though former President Clinton has had significant overseas business dealings.

Your chief supporter here in Ohio, Governor Strickland, made releasing his opponent's tax return one of the primary issues of the campaign, saying repeatedly, "Accountability, transparency." If he's not releasing, his campaign said, his tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what's going on.

Why won't you release your tax return, so the voters of Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island know exactly where you and your husband got your money, who might be in part bankrolling your campaign?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, the American people who support me are bankrolling my campaign. That's -- that's obvious. You can look and see the hundreds of thousands of contributions that I've gotten. And ever since I lent my campaign money, people have responded just so generously. I'm thrilled at so many people getting involved. And we're raising, on average, about a million dollars a day on the Internet. And if anybody's out there, wants to contribute, to be part of this campaign, just go to, because that's who's funding my campaign.

And I will release my tax returns. I have consistently said that. And I will -- "

So, Wolfson should be venting his outrage toward Russert and the American people for requesting Senator Clinton's Income Tax returns. We have the right to ask and Senator Obama is simply following up on her commitment to do so.

Posted by: dennim57 | March 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Does 'SEA HAG' count as a monster? Because I see her as sort of a 'SEA HAG' but I really don't put that into the 'Monster' category.
Hmmm... I could be wrong.

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary thinks that if she gets to the White House she won't find a pile of crap a mile high that none of us knew about, and she will have to change/reassess once she has more facts and access to classified information, then she is not only a monstrous liar, but she is very naive, reckless, and perhaps not as experienced as she likes to put forth.

Of course, Obama has his plan but you have to act responsibly. This clearly points to his character and honesty!

Posted by: dirops | March 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Hussein Obama is so over!

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

American will NOT have such kind of disgusting person be our president! No!

Posted by: hgogo | March 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It's sad how easily the American people get distracted from what really matters. Everyone knows that no politician can give a guarantee that they will deliver what they promise. The president is not a dictator nor a fortune teller. None of them know for sure what will happen between now and when they take office. None of them have absoute control over the thoughts and comments of everyone who works for them.

Look at those apspects of their past and present behavior that you think are important to a future president, and make your decision based on those facts. These sill rows about whether or not Hillary is bi or Obama is really a plant of Al Qaeda are either irrelevant or rediculous, depending on your point of view.

What do I want to know about Obama and Clinton? Who is more likely to keep running the government in the same ineffectual way it has been run for the past decades? Who is more likely to make decisions based on the special interests of powerful corporations, religious groups etc.? Who is more likely to bring this divided country back together again?

Did Hillary experiment with lesbian sex, did Obama toot some coke, who the heck cares. Did Hillary make a deal with the devil to get her senate seat or preferential treatment from the party in her presidential run? Is Obama secretly taking huge contributions from a few rich patrons? Those are the important questions.

Posted by: bjuhasz | March 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Another one of Obama's lies, speeches, and empty promises. Naftagate and now Iraqgate. We know you now Obama. Wake up young people who blindly follow Obama!

Posted by: MAUFIT | March 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a MONSTER. She is a 'win at any cost' type of person.

In my opinion, what is of utmost importance is the integrity of the president (or the person running for president). If the president has integrity, he/she can hire and fire his/her staff if they do illegal or imporper things.

Clintons have a bad record when it comes to integrity. Obama has a good record. So, I still trust Obama to make the right decisions if he gets elected president of this country. I believe he will stand up straight and maintain his integrity, preotect the integrity of the white house, and keep the trust of the people of America as well as other nations around the world.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 7, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I really like Samantha Power. She IS a brilliant person and she was a huge asset to his campaign. This is a shame. What's worse is that most people in America agree with the "monster" comment (Republicans and most Obama-supporters).

As far as press bias goes, there is no doubt that Hillary has cowed the press into presenting her view of the facts. What's more, the press now seems intent on attacking Obama's character, not his positions. The Fourth Estates wavering integrity is disgusting to watch. Hopefully Obama will start getting a fair shake again soon.

Posted by: AdamSC | March 7, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Why is it not a surprised to me that the foreign press are doing a better job at asking question than our mainstream media. They are providing more informations for the public to make sound choice at the poll.

Posted by: Aeldas | March 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

If Obama was any more effte he'd be PeeWee

Posted by: newagent99 | March 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I THOUGHT THAT THE TRUTH WAS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE! So, where's the beef? Why'd Power quit over this absolute fact?

Posted by: prantha | March 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton IS behaving like a monster.

Posted by: walterbond | March 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, two polls released in Mississippi show diverging margins but an Obama win. And they also reveal an outstanding racial polarizing, with one poll showing a 100% gap between black voters and white voters! Full roundup:

Posted by: campaigndiaries | March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company