Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Boycott Gets a Maybe from Obama

By Shailagh Murray
LEVITTOWN, Pa. -- Sen. Barack Obama today took a wait-and-see approach to a potential boycott of the opening ceremonies in Beijing.

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies," he said in a statement. "As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur."

"Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer," he added, "a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games."

Obama's home state of Illinois is hoping to lure the Olympics to Chicago in 2016.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 9, 2008; 7:39 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Candidates React to Carter Hamas Plans
Next: Examining a Mother's Work


Why Obama lost Pennsylvania:

Barack Obama's association with the fanatical Jeremiah Wright, his serving on a board with the terrorist William Ayers, his marriage to a less than patriotic woman, his alleged elitism all have provided much fodder for talk show hosts and the news media. They'll be feeding off it for months to come.

But the blue collar crowd Obama needed to win over in Pennsylvania could have cared less about any of that. Obama lost their vote because he came across to them as a wimp. Throughout that sham ABC debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton beat up on Obama, like the gutter fighter that she is, and he meekly took it. He could easily have crushed once and for all by dredging up the well-documented sleaze and corruption of the Clinton years, yet he chose to keep to the high road.

His forbearance, if that's what it was, may be perceived as strength by his more affluent, better educated supporters, but to the former mill workers in Pennsylvania struggling to make ends meet, it was a sign of weakness. Those folk may not be well versed in economics and foreign affairs, but they know from experience that the world is a tough place and that when diplomacy fails, as it sometimes does, a Commander in Chief needs to have what it takes to wield a big stick.

If Barack Obama doesn't start showing some cojones real soon, he should step aside and let John McCain deal with Hillary. The old warrior, we can rest assured, isn't going to take any gruff from her.

Posted by: Carlos Navarro | April 25, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Boycotting the Olympics-for political reason,is just the way to demonstrate the lack of knoledge about China.Singing the same song of Human rights,Darfur,Tibet Etc.
Howe HUMAIN is for a Government to Spend $100 + Billion on a "werry LEGAL War" and $30 Billion on once Own County? then again We can have some more SOUP Kitchens to elevate the Human dignity of Folk with all the human rights spelled out in the Constitution. Get real-Sport IS,politics- You should know.

Posted by: Adam | April 10, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

St. Andreas Fault,

Ralph Nader?

Obama's, "wait until I see if I have this nomination wrapped up or not" stance is politically deft for the election, but is utterly lacking in any leadership role for the rest of the world.

The world is watching. We need to start showing that we stand up for human rights now. Not only abroad, but at home too.

I'm afraid with Obama, an foreigner can say, "yea, America, the same who had the Iraqi prison scandal, renditions, Gitmo.....why not make 'no comment' on the Chinese".

Isn't Brown boycotting? Isn't Sarkozy thinking of following suit? Unfortunately its an important international issue. Did you see all the attacks on the torch? Things are happening right now, today.

Posted by: Comment | April 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Change? He is saying the same thing Bush is saying when asked about this issue. How is that change?

Posted by: some guy | April 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Blame him.
90 % of the above bloggers have no scope on world issues ... but ample time to spew venom. Reflect yourselves. 'Change' means change the present gridlocked policies.
The outside is looking in ...
There's only one democratic candidate who might have a chance to bring 'change'. Guess who? Right!

Posted by: St. Andreas Fault | April 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies".

Way to NOT use all the power of a president. If Obama turned that statement around...

"The President should boycott the opening ceremonies, then the Chinese might take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people"

... then I would vote for him.

Posted by: amffma | April 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse


That's right. Either we start cleaning up our own act, and sending messages that human rights abuses are not o.k., anywhere.

Or forget about it.

We have to start stepping up to the plate. In Iraq. At Guantanamo. With China...etc.

Posted by: Comment | April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

A world leadership test?

Like the one we've been failing in Iraq for years?

If boycotting a parade in China sways world public opinion more than the war did, then by all means, don't go to the parade. Kick butt all the other days, but no, don't go to the parade.

Posted by: comment | April 10, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse


Leaders of other countries are or are considering not attending the opening ceremonies.

Some are strong European allies.

Even if we don't care about opening ceremonies and China,

people around the world care about China's human rights policies, and world leaders care.

Our President of course meets with world leaders, and needs to provide leadership at summits and things like that.

This is a big deal. It's a world leadership test.

Posted by: Comment | April 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

No, seriously.

This is a non-issue.

None of you are even going to watch the opening ceremonies.

Posted by: Ryan | April 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

WOW...I thought America has changed.
Voting twice for Bush, i thought had opened the eyes of many in the way they think, but it seems that the majority is still the same old ignorants.
Where were the 'balls' of those pretending the have some when they took China's money to show they have some in Iraq?
'Balls' have no value without brain.
Sad sad sad

Posted by: ES NYC | April 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

There are issues and there are non-issues.

This is a non-issue.

Let's move on, please?

Posted by: Ryan | April 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

So if the Chinese play nice for a few months, all is forgiven?

The issue has been decided over the actions of the Chinese government over the last decades.

Either you make a political comment against China and not attend opening ceremonies, or you don't. And an answer is maybe politics should stay out of the games.

There is no time for walking down the middle here, and "wait and see". That's just dodging a decision. That's not leadership.

Posted by: Comment | April 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I thought Hillary's move to state Bush should not attend the Olympics opening ceremony was a good political move. But Obama's political move was even better. He was able to incorporate the genocide in Darfur and Tibetan human rights issue as benchmarks for China to show some progress to address.

This incident shows the demeanor and tactics that Obama and Hillary would use when it comes to foreign policy. Hillary's ultimantim to the Chinese government is similiar to her ultimantim for the Iraqi government under Saddam, "Do what I say or be punished!" whereas Obama is saying "Show us steps of progress!"

Posted by: AJ | April 10, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

As of today, Obama once again "agrees with Senator Clinton" and says that the president should not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. What a fearless leader he is! Held up his finger, tested the wind and/or the polls, and finally came up with the same answer given by other world leaders in the past several days.

Posted by: darlenedeminSoCal | April 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Being jealous of Obama is an ugly thing. Please stop the hate; I like Obama, but at the same time I don't hate Hillary, I just think she and many of her supporters should not be so obvious in the way that they have no problem dividing Dems when it comes to there political goals and ambitions .She should do like Obama and give a speech on racial unity, at least it would let me see that she do not feel the way many of her supporters do (hate diversity). Just for the record last time I checked Rev Wright was not running for president.

Posted by: Bernard | April 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

John-Huevos? On an Hombre?

In Tejas, WE have "Cajones"

Cajones Grande!

Posted by: RAT-The | April 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It's not a fk'n "Maybe."

If China releases Tibet in June and stops giving guns to Sudan, then there would be no justification for a boycott.

Now, how fk'n likely is that?

My goodness... the President of the United States is using a Carrot AND a Stick instead of just a Stick?

How does that make him a wuss?

You wonder why people don't read your papers anymore - because you have people like this writing for them!

Posted by: Don Ritchie | April 10, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Also, there's nothing indecisive about Obama's answer on the Olympics. He simply pointed out that the decision to boycott or not should be based on how China behaves over the next couple of months -- a totally reasonable position, and one that actually includes an incentive for China to improve its human rights record.

Posted by: davestickler | April 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Sandy5274, I don't want to see another post about Rezko from a Clinton supporter until you all have explained why buying a strip of land for *above market value* is corruption, when having your spouse receive an $800,000 payment from an interested party in important legislation isn't.

Posted by: davestickler | April 10, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

As usual, Obama is a day late and a dollar short.
Why does half the world have to protest China's record, but Obama gives some lame follow up.

Hillary got it right first! Obama's just worried about getting the Olympics for Chicago. Second City is unworthy.

Posted by: stefanie | April 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

As i read these blogs everyday, it takes me back to the days when segregations was such a struggle for black people because white people thought we didn't have the intelligence to take care of ourselves without them, we could see in the dark, or we grew a tale at night. The presedential race is very important and that doesn't matter when, of course this one is definitely the most memorable, but it is still about the the right person for the job. I have never seen such bitter people, and you're really bitter because of the race gender issue. So sad we all have to have this hatred going on when the issue of who is capable of running our country, especially after the fiasco of the Bush administration. One thing I can say for Republicans they don't get as nasty with each other as we as Democrats do. Guys take a look at each other, I bet foreigners look or read this garbage and laugh at us! There is nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion, but I think you take it too far! GOD didn't intend for us to have so much hate in our hearts! But if you don't believe in GOD then that explains why you show so much ignorance and intolerance for one another. I will pray for you any way. Now I can imagine the nasty things you'll have to say behind this, I just had to get this off my chest. Not that it makes a differenc to anyone but me. I am an american and I have a right to have my voice just like you do!

Posted by: divajant | April 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, he waited 20 years for the pastor to retire, so he didn't have to quit the church.

No wonder patient Barack would give until the day before, for China to mend its ways before deciding whether to boycott the opening ceremonies.

But as another poster mentioned, the nomination would be a fait accompli, so no "decision" has to be made then.

Chalk another virtue for the Blessed Barack - Patience.

Posted by: pKrishna43 | April 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Down here we call them "huevos". Hillary has 'em, Obama doesn't.

Posted by: John | April 10, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama is giving an ultimatum to allow the Chinese to consider their position and make changes. Barack is being a diplomat, something that we haven't seen in the executive role in a while. Think about when a parent might say, "I'm giving you to the count of three. 1, 2, ..." to correct a behavior proactively, rather than simply punishing the child.

Posted by: nonagon

Spin it any way you like, but this is his history. History, history, history, why in hell would a guy have to vote present 130 times. He is a fence straddler, pure and simple. No doubt.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Savvy move by Obama: instead of self-defeating grandstanding by announcing in advance you'll boycott regardless of China's behavior between now and the Olympics, use the threat of a boycott to try to influence their behavior. The first course gets you nothing but brownie points from Fox News and ill will from China; the second may or may not succeed in altering their behavior, but it at least puts you in a position to have a serious talk with them and holds out the promise of a modest reward, and no embarrassment, if they mend their ways. Frankly I'm not comfortable with all this politicization of the Olympics which originally were intended to transcend political differences, but now that it's gone as far as it has, Obama's appears to be the sounder course of action.

Posted by: Brad K | April 10, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

obama has no balls.

Posted by: Trey

I totally agree. I believe Hillary has more than he does.

Posted by: Chief | April 10, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama is giving an ultimatum to allow the Chinese to consider their position and make changes. Barack is being a diplomat, something that we haven't seen in the executive role in a while. Think about when a parent might say, "I'm giving you to the count of three. 1, 2, ..." to correct a behavior proactively, rather than simply punishing the child.

Posted by: nonagon | April 10, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Would you all feel so damn righteous if the games were in America and countries were espousing a boycott because we were in Iraq? Hmm. Both the Darfur and the Tibetan situations have been going on for a long time and they demand a more forceful and pointed diplomatic policy than not showing up at the opening ceremonies of games that are supposed to reduce tensions between countries. The total boycott by the US of the 1984 games in protest of the Russian war in Afghanistan did nothing, absolutely nothing to end that war.
Way is it people make themselves feel oh so complacent and oh so smug about gestures that do nothing to change the sitution. If you are so mad about things than start boycotting products made in China - oh but there are so many and we need them and after all they hold all those treasury bonds of ours. The real levers to change country behavior are military and economic, not playing games at the games. Pressure our government to have as real policy on the issue of human rights and also start to look at what can be considered human rights violations by our own policies - both in places like Iraq and in places right down the street here in America

Posted by: nclwtk | April 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Typical Obama stance. Straddling the fence. Is a maybe like voting present? Hope he doesn't push the wrong button on the decision.

Gosh, this guy has trouble making decisions doesn't he. I have a four year grandson with the same problem. I'll bet he has barb wire scratches all over his crotch.

Posted by: Chief | April 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama is falling in line behind Senator Clinton, who was out in front on this issue. He seems to be copying her a lot, for example, on his economic policies. We're beginning to see who the real leader in this race is: Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: John | April 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Barak does have one policy he is committed to -- don't tell anybody what you will do as President -- that way people can vote their wishful thinking.
For me, that isn't good enough. I don't vote for political fantasies.

Posted by: Betty Louann | April 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Is that a maybe or a present vote ?
Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Posted by: greenfun | April 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama, as part of his stated bottom up management style, is waiting for the public to tell him what to do.

When the phone rings at 3 AM during his presidency, he will have to make the caller wait for a public response first.

Posted by: Ed | April 10, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

obama has no balls.

Posted by: Trey | April 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama (it is his name) is not a leader. Obama is not electable.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (it is her name) is electable.

Hillary has already proven she can win big in the big electoral rich states that the Dems must win in November. For example, in Ohio, Obama outspent Hillary 4 to 1 yet he won only 5 out of 88 counties in Ohio, those with large black voter turnout for him, the only voting group he won. If you cannot win in Ohio, you cannot win the Presidency.

Today, in Ohio polls, Hillary beats McCain by 10 points, while Obama ties or loses to McCain. Same story is repeated polls in Michigan, Florida, Penn., New York, etc. The Obama caucus wins, where he has racked up his delegates, are meaningless in the general election.

Why do you think the corporate owned media is relentlessly promoting Obama 24/7 while attacking Hillary? They know he cannot win.

Obama's negatives will continue to rise with the Antoin Rezko, Crown, Exelon, Emil Jones, "pastors" Wright, Moss, Meeks,Odinga, and scary Auchi revelations. He does not belong on the ticket at all.

Investigative journalists should be reporting on these newsworthy stories.


Posted by: John | April 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Barak does have one policy he is committed to -- don't tell anybody what you will do as President -- that way people can vote their wishful thinking.
For me, that isn't good enough. I don't vote for political fantasies.

Posted by: Betty Louann | April 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a politician just like the rest of them so much for hope and change

Posted by: we all knew it was true | April 10, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Linda -
I agree 100%.

How can you listen to anyone that thinks Bush has done a good job, when their own lives have gotten worse.


Posted by: OneFreeMan | April 10, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Even Fox News says Obama has joined Hillary Clinton in calling for President Bush to boycott the Chinese Olympics games.


Barack Obama joined Hillary Clinton Wednesday in calling on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing if human rights conditions do not improve.

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies," Obama said.

End Quote:


That sounds pretty definitive to me. The author of this piece-of-crap article must be a supporter of Clinton to claim Obama's position is a "Maybe".

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the reasoning behind people's anger over Sen. Obama's response can be explained by the fact that after seven years of Bush, we're not ready for a president who thinks before he acts, or who understands tact.

Posted by: Linda | April 10, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama is right its 2 far from the games to says your going to boycott the opening cermonies, wait and see like he said

With a statement like that maybe you should apply for a job as Sec'y of State. You commit now when it will has some effect, not the day before. Your grasp of this issue is hilarious.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama is such a wimp! He will not assert himself on anything! What kind of proof does he need? He's afraid of putting anything solid on his resume for fear of losing votes. He has no substance!

Hillary '08

Posted by: Susan | April 10, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Of course he did not commit. He has to get with his advisers to see what side of this issue will be more advantageous for him. This
spineless snake oil salesman will not commit to anything unless he sees an advantage for himself. Barry cares for one person only. not the USA. Will he ever be able to make a decision if he is elected?

Posted by: Jaques Straw | April 10, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama is right its 2 far from the games to says your going to boycott the opening cermonies, wait and see like he said

Posted by: ak | April 10, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

A sure way to win nomination and election.Mrs. clinton should talk to Mr. bill gates for v.president.

Posted by: p.t | April 10, 2008 6:23 AM | Report abuse

Calling for an immediate boycott is the easy route for politicians trying to court cheap popularity. A smarter politician would use the threat of a boycott as a tool to influence. When you have announced a boycott you have spent all your influence without any success. A boycott achieves nothing....look at Gordon Brown in the UK who says he will boycott the opening ceremony but attend the closing ceremony. Please tell me how does this advance the interests of the Tibetans or Darfur. This same guy hosts the Chinese and pushes for more trade deals with the Chinese and oops he also needs to shore up his declining support so he gives the easy answer.

Obama is right on this your political powder and use it for influence instead of appealing to cheap popularity contests.

Posted by: Shaded | April 10, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Re: Obama vs Clinton-
Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:

as impressive as interest is in the Senator from Illinois,
it should be remembered that those totals include the tag "clinton", which would include any about Bill and Chelsea.

so, really, there's much more interest in Obama, than in least, on the web

Posted by: x | April 10, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Smart move by Obama. China, like it or not, is a key partner of America and you can better give them every chance to change before such a slap in the face. This is why his numbers are soaring on the Internet, for instance;

Obama vs Clinton-
Social Bookmarking Sites & the Web:

Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Instead of boycotting the Olympics, I think Obama should change it from within by COMPETING! How dope would that be?! The only way to show China what's up is to single-handedly win more gold medals. Do it BaRocky! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Posted by: | April 10, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

So the orginial "Mr Clueless In Chicago"
Barack Hussein Obama is doing it again,out
flip! flop! waffle! waffle over the idea
of Boycotting the Olympic Games in China
thingy huh? Oh well "Clueless in Chicago"
Obama sat thru 20years of his "Uncle" Rev
Jerimiah Wright Hate Speech Sermons and
didn't have a clue that Rev Wright is a
black power advocate and racist either.
And so "Mr Clueless in Chicago Obama" didn't have a clue that his pal Tony Rezko
was a crooked Chicago Slumlore either...
And now "Mr Clueless in Chicago Obama"
doesn't have a clue about the US Military
since Obama never served it,but wants you
to trust him to be Commander in Chief of
Our US Military! And lie after lie it goes
on with Mr "Clueless in Chicago" Obama!
So just say NO to Barack Hussein Obama and
prove your not as clueless as he is folks.

Posted by: Sandy5274 | April 9, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

KJL wrote, "You are a nazi, and a racist... with the same philosophy as those who put Jews in concentration camps, and Blacks into slavery."

I have learned from experience the people that call others racist either feel they are superior to those they attack or are closet racist trying to hide their true hatred by attacking others first.

I think you protest too much, so you must be a racist. I hope you feel better now that we have this out in the open.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 9, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

What the?

Just ignore KJL- she drank too much Kool-Ade. Both sides have some crazy bloggers- it's just I've seen so many more of them for Barak (It's funny, the nuts are usually the most ignorant and politically naive of his supporters- the Obamopaths). I hope that more of his sane supporters post- this could be a reasonable argument rather than flinging accusations.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse


Pretend that you're a Democrat (Hillary supporter)

Smear Obama with any of the following:

1. He's a Muslim
2. He's not Black enough
3. He's not White enough
4. He's not patriotic
5. He's a racist
Pretend that you're a Democrat (Obama supporter)

Smear Hillary with any of the following:

1. She's a lesbian
2. She's not woman enough
3. She's not liberal enough
4. She's a murderer

What's your point?

Posted by: What The? | April 9, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

The Original Olympics

The original Olymics was meant to be a time-out for politics and war.

For almost 500 years, all warring factions of Greek culture would stop fighting, and send their atheletes to the Olympics.

It's was sacred that there would be no fighting (or politics) during the Olympics.

The Olympics were a time out from fighting. Enemies would be compete next to each other, but there were no reprisals, no politics.

Maybe, if we're to truely embrace the spirit of the original Olympics, we would do the same.

Posted by: De-militarized Zone | April 9, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm, uh, uh present. Uh, uh what uh was the uh question? Olympics? Uh, uh I'll uh let you know uh what I uh think.

Posted by: BHO | April 9, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

What did Hillary do? Uhm, OK, Let's take a poll and see what the "typical white people" think about boycotting the opening ceremonies, then I'll make a decision. Is there any possibility of negative repercussions from this? Research that, too, then I'll decide. What do you think David? Uhm, OK, I'll get back to you all.

Posted by: Obama | April 9, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

If he can't take a position on a relatively small issue like the president attending (or not ) the Olympic opening ceremony, how will he make the big decisions? He echoes HRC on eveything. It's like he's afraid to take a stand until he puts a finger in the wind.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with the WashPost these days? The blog has been dominated by Hillary for the last two days and we get an Obama article and they call him wishy-washy?

I don't really see it. All he said was, let's give them these months to make an improvement. But he also made it clear a boycott was depending on their maintaining the crap they're doing now. It'd be wishy-washy if he say "let's wait and see" without provisions...

Egad... I'm getting sick of these blogs. Same S Different D.

Posted by: jencm | April 9, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse


More rhetoric? NAZIs? What are you talking about? Please try and give one policy of the guy you support


Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

This is just to one-up Hillary. It's the chic thing to do right now for the Dems. But will this backfire?

Posted by: matthew p | April 9, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

And Barack Hussein weighs in;

"Present"! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 9, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse


You continually reduce this contest to one about race, or religion.

You are a nazi, and a racist... with the same philosophy as those who put Jews in concentration camps, and Blacks into slavery.

Doesn't that give you pause? ....that you've become them?

Posted by: KJL | April 9, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Is this an example of the type of decisive leadership we are going to get from Obama? Can't he just say he is for or against it? He does say the decision should be made closer to the games. That is probably because the race for the nomination will be over then so he can just defer it in to the future and not have to take a stand at all. This man looks more and more like Jimmy Carter every day and not in a good way.

Posted by: Daniel Hancock | April 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse


So who spends all their time with hateful rhetoric? Not one Obama position in your post but you call HRC a neocon puppet. So I guess you missed the 90s when they spent 8 years smearing her for being a strong woman? Which are these superior Obama policies? HRC's healthcare proposal is more inclusive, her economic package is more thorough and inclusive, her plan for redeployment better thought out, her energy policy more realistic. Why don't the Obamopaths start talking policy? Stop slamming hillary you mindless drone lemming.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

3 new polls today (2 from PA and 1 from NC) all bring good news for Obama who is trailing very narrowly in PA and leading comfortably in NC. Link:

Posted by: D | April 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey... typical Hussein smoke and mirrors.

WAIT until the issue has been decided by the majority and then JUMP ON THE BAND WAGON.

He WILL NOT make a decision that could be used against him..


Posted by: MIller51550 | April 9, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse


Pretend that you're a Democrat (Hillary supporter)

Smear Obama with any of the following:

1. He's a Muslim
2. He's not Black enough
3. He's not White enough
4. He's not patriotic
5. He's a racist

note: never address any "issues", instead smear him with any association: his pastor, someone who endorses him, his wife, his father,etc. always make racist commments (i.e. compare him to Jim Jones), put his middle name in capital letters...and MOST IMPORTANT repeat it over and over (check FoxNews for latest smear)

remember: Americans are stupid! (look how we got them in the Iraq war!)

if you repeat anything enough, they'll believe it.



* note: this is generally true, but if Hillary is nominated, it doesn't matter who gets can vote for whomever you want....McCain is slightly better, but both are in our lobby's pocket, i.e. both Clinton and McCain will put America in our WARS


but not Obama


Posted by: KJL | April 9, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company