Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Shakeup in the Electability Argument

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) stand at their podiums during a commercial break at the National Constitution Center on April 16, 2008 in Philadelphia. (Getty Images)

By Dan Balz
Hillary Clinton's slender hopes for winning the Democratic presidential nomination rest on her ability to persuade the party's superdelegates that she is now more electable than Barack Obama. That was the subtext of her debate strategy in Philadelphia on Wednesday night and the argument she is pushing through the remaining primaries.

Early in the campaign, she played the electability card by invoking her experience -- "Ready on day one," as she so often put it. If designed as a putdown of Obama, it was at least characterized in a positive way.

In the late hours of this Democratic race, she raises the electability argument by pointing more directly at potential weaknesses -- known and unknown -- of her opponent. In Philadelphia, she missed few opportunities to remind Democrats that Republicans would pounce on every one of Obama's vulnerabilities.

"I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly, but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising," she said, when his association with William Ayers, once a member of the radical Weather Underground, was raised by the moderators.

When the conversation turned to Obama's "bitter" comments and the storm they had kicked up, she joined in putting him down and sought to direct Democrats to what really mattered: "The Republicans, who are pretty shrewd about what it takes to win, certainly did jump on the comments," she said.

There is not much evidence that her strategy is working. Superdelegates continue to trickle steadily Obama's way while her campaign continues to plead with them at least to remain neutral as the final primaries are played out. One reason may be that neither she nor Obama can make the more compelling case as to who is more electable against John McCain.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll sheds light on this debate among the Democrats. The survey tested McCain against both Obama and Clinton. Obama fared better, but not decisively so. Obama led McCain 49 percent to 44 percent, while McCain edged Clinton, with 48 percent to Clinton's 45 percent.

In the past month, as McCain has enjoyed the luxury of being able to consolidate the Republican Party behind his candidacy, Clinton and Obama have continued to bang away at each other. The effects are clear from the survey. McCain gained ground on both of the Democrats, narrowing what was a 12-point Obama advantage in early March to just 5 points today. Against Clinton, he turned a 5-point deficit into a narrow 3-point lead.

Democrats betting that Obama is the stronger nominee are putting their faith in two groups of voters: younger voters and independents.

Younger voters were a key to Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses and, by their own testimony, a force in prompting some prominent elected officials to back Obama. Younger voters offer a potentially huge advantage in the general election--if they turn out in big numbers.

A McCain-Obama contest would dramatically split the electorate along generational lines. That match-up showed voters over age 35 divided roughly evenly between McCain and Obama, but those under 35 favored the Illinois senator by 20 points. McCain v Clinton produced fairly even splits among those under 35, those between 35 and 54 and those 55 and over.

The second key to Obama's hopes against McCain are those voters who call themselves independents. Obama has enjoyed their support in the primaries against Clinton and he fares far better among independents in a test with McCain. Clinton currently loses them by 10 points to the Arizona senator while Obama carries them by 8 points.

Clinton's candidacy in the primaries has been built around support from women and from working class whites. The Post-ABC News poll offers her scant evidence that she would do significantly better than Obama among those constituencies in a general election.

A McCain-Clinton race would create a huge gender gap. In the Post-ABC News poll, McCain led Clinton by 17 points among men (and by 30 points among white men), while she led by 11 among women (though was behind by 5 among white women).

Obama's deficit among all men is single digits and only about half the size of Clinton's among white men. And at this point he does slightly better than Clinton among all women and among white women.

What about the group that has drawn the most attention from the Democrats in recent primaries -- the white, working class voters? Clinton has staked her candidacy in large part on the argument that she is far better equipped to win their votes than is Obama.

That has been true in most of the Democratic primaries, but the general election match-ups show that she and Obama fare equally poorly with these voters against McCain. At this point in the campaign, Obama can argue that he does slightly better among these voters than does Clinton.

McCain beats Clinton by 20 points and Obama by 17 points among white, non college voters. He wins whites earning less than $50,000 against both candidates -- by 11 points against Clinton and by 7 points against Obama.

Clinton's campaign points to some state-by-state polling that shows her running better than Obama in some states like Florida . That is a potential concern for the Democrats as they head into the general election but may be even less reliable at this point than national polling.

Clinton's hope of persuading Democratic superdelegates that she is the stronger general election candidate is also undercut by her rising negatives. The long campaign has hurt her among Republicans and independents, according to the Post-ABC News findings.

There is no question that Obama too looks like a less formidable candidate today than he did a few months ago, when he was in the process of opening up his lead in the delegate battle. But Clinton's electability argument needs ratification from voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and other states still waiting to vote before superdelegates will buy her argument.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 18, 2008; 12:35 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pin Question Sticks It to Obama
Next: Obama Debate Complaints Greeted by Clinton Mockery


Many comments about the canidates are not based on any facts that have been discovered or independently investigated by the commentators posted, but by so call facts from the media,in general. The fact that most of what is reported is not authenticated or a repeat of he said she said. Normally the whole story is not told, just the portion that is deemed " News Worthy", whatever that means. Do we stop and ask the question, how is that determined or by whom? Do we really believe everything that is reported is true? It's one thing to report news from the source that created it, because it belongs to the them, it's not reporting news when it is assigned by another source. Media in general, gets a free pass on trustworthliness, which is a terrible mistake, because there is little or no accountability. It hides under a shroud of anonymity. This creates an atmosphere of superstition and allows things to spread, creating distrust and division as it takes on life, not at the source that created it , but at it's target. The current mess our country is in has very little to do with republicans or democrates. The shame of it all, is that relying on tv and radio personalities to tell us what truth is. No one or nothing on earth is perfect, but that doesn't mean we should not seek it. All things have errors or faults in them naturally, and if not covered up will be seen. Fabrications or modifications makes one wander, if something is being covered up. Diamonds and other precious things have faults and still have value, but the the less the faults the more value it has. We Americans say this proudly when we visit other countries and would not, inspite of our faults, would not trade her for the world. Does this mean that America need no improving and should be left as she is ? If that is the case nothing would ever need changing in this country, then should we conclude that the pursuit of perfection cease ?

Posted by: PB | April 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

It's a moot point who gets the Dem nomination...HRC or any objective, thinking person knows McCain hasn't a snowball's chance of being elected president.

Once again, the Repubs in their infinite stupidity have handed the White House to the Democrats...this time they nominated a McGeezer who would continue with 4-8 more years of war-mongering, corruption, and incompetence.

Helluva job, Repubs!

Posted by: RealCalGal | April 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

George and Charlie screwed up what could have and should have been a good debate. Furthermore, that wasn't even a debate period. With a whole hour and a half, they reserved it (from the beginning even) for stupid questions, and among them the flag pin??? Those two are supposed to be professionals and in a nationally important televised debate, they bring up flag pins??? I should've been the moderator for goodness sakes. I'd have made good use of the time, and every question will have counted with substance. That was not a debate. That was a dumb waste of time and an insult to the intelligence of many. That was disrespectful of many people in terms of their time. This is an important year to vote for our next president, and we deserved to have a Good, Decent, Substantive debate.

George and Charlie combined, both of them failed many in this nation miserably. I hope they learned a lesson. Two of them, and not one of them saved the debate but continued down the same path of irrelevence. You two ought to be embarrassed with how you chose to utilize your ninety minutes. You had plenty of time to come up with good questions to cover that length of time, and that's the best you came up with during these crucial times? Pathetic. Sit back and watch some of the other debates.

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 20, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

michael4, short version: Obama makes the better general election nominee against McCain.

Short verson addendum: The only way that McCain wins is if voters ignore all issues of substance and get diverted by B.S. non-troversies.

And no I don't get paid for this stuff -- I just do my homework. I figure it's a civic duty to be an informed voter. I make reading up on this stuff a priority.

Posted by: JP2 | April 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It'll be over next Tuesday, or--at the latest--on May 6. Then the intraparty bickering can stop and we can move on to the real contest: Obama vs. McCain.

Posted by: Durant Imboden | April 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed at how people said Obama did not do well in the debate. If he would have said as the world knows that Clinton lied about Bosnia and snipers. Bill lied when he said she only said it once late at night when she was fuzzy and tired,when she actually said it three time and she also said it during the day. Obama could have said well since her own husband said she can not think straight at 11 pm then how could she make a sound judgement at 3 am. He did remind us that Bill did pardon two Weathermen. Clinton better be concern about what the Republican have in store for her. Some of the bloggers may be to young to remember the Clinton scandals but the world did not. The Republican may delve into Foster's death, White water and why the Clintons have not named the contributors to Bill's library what about all of the pardons that Bill granted and what were the circumstances I think these are legitimates answer that are as relevant as any others. The best way to try to get people to forget about your transgressions is to attack your opponent. The Republicans want to face Clinton and not Obama, that is why some republicans were/are encouraged to vote for Clinton. There may be much more that the Republicans will reveal than the world already knows. Have anyone ever stop to think that Al Gore was VP under Bill but have not endosed Hillary. Mr. Gore who should be call President Gore seemed to not have wanted Bill involved in his campaign either. If being mean-sprited and putting your self above what is good for the country and party is what you want, then Hillary did well in the debate. If Obama would have alluded to Hillary's negatives then he would have been accused of picking on Hillary because she is a woman or using the same old negative politics. This was not necessary look at Hillary approval rating the Republicans will.

Remember folks meek is not weak but strength under control.

Posted by: buckman | April 19, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

to Debra:

It is Clinton who doesn't believe in counting votes fairly. The rules were about Florida and Michigan were set in place BEFORE THE SOCALLED BUT ACTUALLY NONEXISTENT primaries took place. She knew it wouldn't count, she accepted it, until it appeared that it might cost her the nomination. Then, she wanted to change the rules afterward, which is never fair. What a crybaby. Everybody knows that in a fair contest, with candidate appearances allowed, and real advertising, unlike the paltry national ad campaigns aired by Obama, which happened to include FL (yes, he shouldn't have done that), he would have gotten a larger percentage of the vote than he did. And what about the rights of the Obama voters who stayed home because it wasn't going to count? She is the one stealing the election, and you are falling for her garbage!!!

Posted by: Barbara | April 19, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse


Either you are paid to write this garbage, or you have too much time on your hands. In any event, I am not about to waste my time reading that book of about an executive summary?

Posted by: michael4 | April 19, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

jennifer potenciano:

You mischaracterize too much for your "piece" to be educational. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: michael4 | April 19, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Electability -- the exit polling on this one from Edison-Mitofsky courtesy MSNBC consistently shows this as the last of four concerns amongst Democratic primary voters. The vote typical ranks as the top concern for only about 6 to 8 percent of Democratic primary voters.

The electability issue does register as a concern, but it's safe to say that most voters are not as concerned about the issue as Washington's chattering class.

Let's deal with the argument though -- who is more electable?

If we're going strictly by the numbers one of the first factors that I'd want to look at are favorability numbers. According to Rasmussen Obama's negatives have gone up recently -- they've been anywhere from a high of 51 percent (bad) to as low as 44 percent over the past couple weeks (even after the Wright flap). Clinton's on the other hand registered as high as 56 percent in today's Rasmussen poll -- her numbers haven't dropped below 50 percent on the negative side in some time.

In today's recently released Newsweek poll Clinton's negatives registered at 49 percent to Obama's 36 percent.

Ideally going into the general election I would not want my party's nominee to be at or above 50 percent. Give McBush a couple months and we can start to make an apples to apples comparison on this one.

The other factor that I'd look at is the distribution of support levels. It is true that Clinton's numbers are roughly in the same neighborhood as Obama's -- however, from an electoral perspective there is no competition between the two. Clinton's numbers are bolstered by a strong concentration of support in a handful of key battleground states as well as reliably Democratic states -- Obama's are strong across the board outside of parts of the southeast -- especially west of the Mississippi.

While Clinton makes the substantially stronger play in Florida and New Jersey -- and would likely not need to invest resources in these states; she does significantly worse than Obama in Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nebraska (with the state's split electoral votes), Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado -- states which Obama has the prospect of putting in play and forcing McSame and the RNC to invest resources.

Even at this stage -- based purely on electability I would much rather run with Obama than the alternative.

On the Clinton side, I think her team gets plaudits for their media spin operation -- they have been able to frame the narrative in ways favorable to their candidate in a manner that is not consistent with the reality on the ground.

In other areas they have not been as successful (ground organization, use of resources, etc).

In terms of contrast points too -- on special interest money, trustworthiness, and issues such as the Iraq War Obama serves as a much stronger contrast going into the general election. The breadth and diversity of his support networks too are an asset that neither of the general election alternatives is likely to have.

As far as Washington's special interests lobbies go Obama is more of an x-factor, so I would not be surprised to see a concerted and continued effort to obfuscate on big issues (the GOP isn't going to run on McBush's record -- the economy, Iraq, government transparency). "Who's the bigger patriot?" the last refuge of scoundrels -- is clearly where the GOP wants the debate to take place.

I'm also sure that many in the press corp won't seriously examine the assumptions underlying that question (is selling out the economic interests of ordinary Americans "patriotic"?) I think it's a safe bet that the ABC debate probably is a preview of the trivial nonsense that the chattering class will obsess over throughout the next several months. The primary concerns of ABC's news division are clearly not in alignment with your run of the mill voter.

At the end of the day though, I think the anger and desire for change in the general electorate is real enough.

I'm sure that McSame a career Washington insider will position himself as that agent of change, and I'm sure many of his friends on cable news and some network channels will attempt to sell that argument -- I'm not entirely sure though that a majority of voters will buy that argument in this election cycle.

Posted by: JP2 | April 19, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats can't afford to nominate someone with no experience and a history of multiple felonies, including grand theft auto and a repeated use of hard drugs."

Didn't know Hillary was arrested for grand theft auto. Her other felonies were youthful indescretions, brought on by too many shots and beers down at the union hall.


Posted by: tom | April 18, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Your source is a blog not neccessarily a credible news source; anybody can compile any opinion or rumor on a blog and call it fact; Do you have a more reliable source for your info?

Posted by: IntelliWhitFeminiWoman | April 18, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of shake ups and hard questions of Obama, a closer look at just how dirty and how clever the twisted schemes are in Chicago, and how up to his eyeballs Obama is with Rezko here's something the lazy rip and read journalists might want to get off their fat arses and take a look at.

It's from

"I am a long time employee of the Cook County Assessor and would like to come clean about personal knowledge relating to an inconsistency in Sen. Obama's property taxes.

Mr. Barack Obama and his wife purchased a house in Hyde Park during the month of June 2005. The total purchase price was $1,650,000. Title was put into a unnamed land trust. I will not publish a pin or address because of obvious security concerns for the Obama family.

The house was reassessed during summer of 2006. All of the surrounding houses were increased by an average of 28%. The Obama residence increased 6%. What is more troubling is that we always attempt to assess houses at about 68% of actual sale prices. The Obama residence is assessed at 90,882 with a market value of 568,012. That is just about one third of the selling price from 2005. When I questioned this assessment, I was transferred to another project in the office. The Obama assessment was then completed by the same person who did the workup for Governor Blagojevich's house, which also was assessed at a lower percentage of surrounding properties and rose at a fraction of the rate of surrouding properties. According to standards set up within the office, the assessment should have been 179,520 and the tax bill should have been almost double in this one assessment cycle alone.

These types of things occur almost weekly. Such is the way of Cook County and Chicago. They probably happen every day but I don't see it because they have me answering the telephone now."

This is small potatoes but it is part of very large rotten barrel of Chicagco style politcos.

Your sleazy Chicago politcians at work.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | April 18, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

BTW Cheryl,
You might be interested to know that Rev. Wright in that sermon "Confusing God with Government" from which those snippets were pulled and aired 24/7, Rev Wright complains that it took so long for our government to pass ammendment's that established women's right to vote, equal representation under the law, and control over their own bodies; states that Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, African-Americans and others have been unfairly treated in the past; And that many governments have acted unfarily;(He also compliments our government for changing; specifically speaking approvingly of Bill Clinton's presidency); He reminds his congregation that oppressor's come in all colors;He reminds his constituency not to attribute any nations actions as God-blessed because God is always loving, always does the right thing; He reminds his congregation that when any government, any nation takes action that is dishonest or oppressive or without just cause,it cannot rightfully claim that those actions are God blessed.

Posted by: IntelliWhitFeminiWoman | April 18, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

I have noticed for months how some of Senator Clinton's supporters are quite bitter at Barack for probably winning a nomination, that was supposed to be coronation and how many of them often project, a psychological defense mechanism, in describing Barack, when what they say far more aptly characterizes Hillary, such as on ths issue of honesty.

Recent polls show Hillary has a negative rating of as high as 58% among the electorate. This highly negative opinion of her by a majority of people and polls showing Barack doing better against McCain, clearly show who is more electable in the fall.

Posted by: An Independent | April 18, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse


There are several inaccuracies in your post:
First and foremost Obama and his campaign have never labeled any of Hillary's, Bill's,Geraldine Ferraro's, Lanny Davis', Rendell's, Carville's or any others from her campign as "racist", "racist-based", "racially-motivated" or any such thing;despite that some sonsitutents have suggested it,he has repeatedly said he does not attribute them as "racist"; He has called them "wrong-minded", "divisive" and "disingenuous".
(Those don't sound like particularly negative adjectives especially when compared to the Clinton campaign's labels of "un-American", "unpatriotic", "traitorous", "elitist"). You are correct in stating that he has apologized for statements made by his campaign that were inappropriate, though milder than many from the Clinton supporters.

Second the Clinton campaign came out on multiple occasions with politically-charged words and phrases that were intended to subtly trigger inference of race, religion, ethnicity with "calculated intent"; an effective political strategy requiring Obama to address race and for the clinton campaign to then counter that he was the first to bring race into this campaign. That is not saying that they or the campaign is "racist"; only that they knew that these carefully planted phrases and innuendos would trigger responses in others that are not nearly as "tolerant".

Third, many of us small donors have contributed to his campaign $25, $50, $100, or $250 of hard- earned salary at a time; I am not a lobbyist, a corporate executive, just a mom working hard to support a 17-year old son and donating for the first time to a presidential candidate. I have voted in every presidential campaign since I reached 18; I have read and listened and researched the candidates; I have based my support of presidential candidate on responsible and reasonable thinking and am very careful not to make unsupported and malicious statements regarding ANY candidate or potential candidate in
this campaign. I don't think it is unreasonable to
expect others to do the same.

Posted by: IntelliWhitFeminiWoman | April 18, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

gbook,i wasn't counting,i was comparing in case you missed that. the other thing you missed is i'm no hillary supporter. i'm not even a mccain supporter. and one thing is clear,the dems ideas are not sustainable and they are a danger to the country's future. but it looks like they will get to prove it.

Posted by: gunclinger | April 18, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

What to talk electability??

McCain's will eventually rally the Republicans behind him and make it a tight race. . . . The CORPORATE media will favor McCain like they were against Hillary vs Obama, for the most part.

BUT, not all Democrats will hang in there with Obama, because he will never get the Latino vote. The Latino vote will mean a small hemorage away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans. . . . . . In other words a 4% lost of standard Democrats over to Republicans means an 8% swing. And in a tight race that can be important.

Also, Hillary offers the Democrats some insulation against those who are afraid of getting out of Iraq too soon. Although both Hillary and Obama want to pull the troops, the general perception is that Hillary will study the situation more and a lot better than the single minded Obama. . . . . . . Therefore, fence sitters on this subject can feel more comfortable with Hillary.

The long and short of it is that Hillary is more electable against McCain.

Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 18, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

i don't read them that way. i see them as puncturing all the gee whiz, it's all over tabloid cable coverage cause obama has it wrapped up. it ain't over for the very points the articles made. it's only april and stuff does happen.

Posted by: fieldenstern | April 18, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has stayed on for too long already , I don,t want to hear any more "I have 35 years experience." Doing what? If she some how manages to stay on much longer we won,t be able to buy Obama stickers etc until its to late to proudly display on our cars. Go Home lYing Hag!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

When Obama decided to run for president, he said "I know how to win elections".
Obama has had some very big money behind him from day one.
In previous elections Obama has won by destroying his opponents. He has used the same tactics in this election.

He told his supporter, he was a new kind of politician and would not play negative politics.
His campaign then immediately attacked Hillary Clinton with accusations and insults that were so negative his campaign ended up having to apologize for them.
Next he said it would not be about race and then immediately twisted the words of Hillary Clinton in order to label her a racist.
This is a joke to anyone who knows her history, she has spent her life fighting for civil rights.
He also accused many others who have always supported civil rights of being racist. He made these accusation while he was still attending a racist church.

He has a way of doing things that seems to work on people.
First, everytime he insults Hillary Clinton he follows the insult with the comment that he does not want to play negative politics.
Second he made the media so afraid that if they questioned him on anything they would be accused of being racist.

Every morning his campaign holds a conference call where they always make some kind of accusation against Hillary Clinton and as soon as she responds they accuse her of going negative.

It is frightening that people are so easily misled by these tactics.

He also convinced his followers that he only gets money from small donors. Even though it has been reported on and proven that more than 50% of his donations are from large donors and that he does take money from the oil industry, his followers will defend him and deny the facts.

He attended a churh that preaches Black Liberation Theology, which is itself a racist view, for 20 years and never gave a speech asking the congregation to work on their anger and hatred against the white race or heal their anti-semitism.
Yet when this became an issue for his campaign he give a speech asking all Americans do work on these issues.
Even while asking Americans to get past racism he defended Reverend Wright.

Hillary Clinton would not have gone negative in this campaign if Obama had not forced her to in order to defend herself.
Hillary Clinton is about solutions and loves nothing more than explaining her plans and solutions in detail. That is the way her campaign would have gone if Obama had not derailed it with the help of the media.

What those who support Obama should take into consideration is that the media have given him a free ride and attacked Hillary non-stop.
If Obama wins the nomination the table will turn. The media will support the Republican nominee and will assist the Republican party is destroying him and there is more ammunition for them to do this than you can imagine. We have only scratched the surface so far.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a better America.

Posted by: cheryl | April 18, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

What a joke. The article starts out saying that neither Clinton nor Obama can claim to be more electable, and then goes on to demonstrate, point by point, how Obama is polling ahead with nearly every constituent group and is leading McCain by 5 points nationally, while Clinton trails by 3 points.

The media really wants to drag this thing out and it has become so obvious that it is just pathetic.

Our fourth estate has been co-opted for a long time now, there are very few quality journalists out there.

For those of you who think Hillary would be a good president, haven't you had enough lies and deceit lately to last a lifetime?
She is a power hungry, self-righteous, indignant, manipulator and you've all fallen for her shrill ploy.

Posted by: obamakaze | April 18, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse


Despite it website URL ("straightrecord") it appears to be no more than an apologist site for Clinton. In addition to the verbiage, it also includes links to Clinton websites. Come up with something objective, and don't waste our (my) time.

Posted by: michael4 | April 18, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

all is not lost, cristine, for you or my candidate, joe biden. see my posting a few above yours.

Posted by: fieldenstern | April 18, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Though I did not(and do not) support the current administration's position on a multitude of issues; I am even more appalled as to how it conducts its business:
1. Its insistence that rules and laws do not apply to this administration and their actions
2. Its eagerness to label those who disagree with its views and actions as "un-American", "unpatriotic","elitist", "traitorous"
3. Its willingness to dispel truth and supplant it with "misspeaks" and distortions
4. Its cronyism; Rewarding individuals for "loyalty" above ability and credibility
5. And to punish those who dare speak against their distortions and actions

When I see a presidential campaign again and again twisting facts, falsely representing the validity of the Fl and MI primaries; neglecting to tell their constituents that they lent their support to Kathleen Sullivan (NH)in opposing early primaries during the vote at the DNC vote (including MI);falsely labeling the opponent and their supporters as "un-American", "unpatriotic",
"traitorous", "Judas", it is not difficult for me to see that despite its proposed positions being more in line with mine, its concept about how to conduct a campaign ( and I fear how it will conduct its administration) are repugnant and damaging.
I venture that I am not the only one who has made this connection but I have not heard anyone address it. Its not just what you say you'll do; its how accountable you'll be to the voters who you are supposed to be representing. Of course, none of us can be certain whether the candidate once elected will deliver on their promises but these "at all costs" tactics do not bode well for
the presidential campaign of which I speak.
Posted by:IntelliWhitFeminiWoman

Posted by: IntelliWhitFeminiWoman | April 18, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

The media has been propping up Hillary all along before Obama made a name for himself and now that Obama is beating her in most states. ABC must stand for "A biggoted channel" because the two "moderators" looked like they were trying to hold Obama as Jack Johnson down to protect the great white hope Hillary. Nobody was fooled by the claim that they are getting tough now. They pulled the prejudice card out.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 18, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if Obama can win since the entire media seems intent on slandering him running with the slanders hurled by HilBill and McCain (and the right-weirdo groups haven't even had to spend money yet, but I do know HilBill can't win. She has told one lie too many, as has her repulsive evil twin/husband.

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 18, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse


And you are from what planet? It wasn't Bill's friends who initially "turned on her"... it was the VOTERS. Bill didn't help, running his mouth constantly, I'll grant you. However, she started with the assumption that she would be crowned by acclimation and had zero plan for after Super Tuesday, which she lost. Afterwards, the "kitchen sink" tactic sunk her, and exposed her for what she evidently is, a spoiled brat. She needs to re-group and help Obama win in November then help him (and need I say us?) get this country on the right path. We still need her. I hope she doesn't let us down again.

After Super Tuesday, the FOB simply decided to get on a winning horse. If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

Posted by: michael4 | April 18, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I grow more frightened every day. Why oh, why was my candidate John Edwards eliminated so early and ignored by the media? This whole historic "black/women" blathering has given us two questionable candidates who have turned the democratic sure victory in 08 into a republican wet dream. We need to wipe the slate clean of both of them and get a viable candidate now!

Posted by: Cristine | April 18, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has lost. It is over. She fights on weakening Obama and positioning herself to say "I told you so" when the party should be uniting. The only way you beat Obama is by ruining him. Nobody will support her as a delegate if she does that.

Her megalomaniac defense for attacking Obama is that the Republicans will do the same in the fall. Carrying water for the Republicans reveals your true colors Mrs. Clinton.

Are you trying to line yourself up for an independent run with Lieberman or something?

On another note some good is coming out of a drawn out race with discourse and debate going on every single state this election season for the first time ever.

More people are registered Dem now more than ever. Twice as many people were voting in the Dem primary than in the GOP in the early states. And all of this is scaring the Bejesus out of the Neocon-McCarthy Party. Hillary has raised more than twice as much as McSame. Obama has raised more than three times as much as McSame.

The Republicans keep digging deeper for manure in Democratic fields to salvage their November chances. The RNC is getting desperate.

Are you Republicans really so blind to see that fresh steaming coating of manure the Bush/Cheney Administration just coated your field with?

Parties be damned, moderates will see this election is too important for McCain to continue the insanity of Bush/Cheney policy.

And to everyone who is attacking Obama for his ties to Rezko, his reverend and all of that other crap... You strike me as the morons who voted in Bush and I tell you what, you are a pot calling the kettle black. With all of the corruption of Bush and Cheney to Halliburton, their ties to that insane group called PNAC, this only shows that Bush and Cheney are just as insane as Ayers and Wright.

Posted by: My Own Private Bitter Idaho | April 18, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

What a ludicrous article!

I mean, I have taken a step back from this whole process and have not been glued to the TV like most people who watch Faux News and read the WaPo.

I mean, who writes this stuff!!!!

After the Democratic party convention, it will be a whole new ball game.

McCain's comment that "we will be in Iraq for the next 100 years" will be played over and over and over again.

Talk about "electability problems"!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

if the superdelegates wait until the convention, they'll have a good idea. part of the decision will be which will help in their particular area of interest. that's what the back-room arm-twisting is about. check out a more thorough exposition of the situation here: and

Posted by: fieldenstern | April 18, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Is there an echo in here?

Posted by: motiv8ed | April 18, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Posted by: motiv8ted | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Posted by: motiv8ted | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Posted by: motiv8ted | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
Posted March 16, 2008 | 04:23 PM (EST)

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.

And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....

Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Let us remember, there is no rule that the superdelegates have to follow the pledged delegate count. If they did, then we wouldn't need superdelegates.

Superdelegates are there to ensure that the most electable candidate in November gets the nomination.

The two candidates are in a virtual tie. If either candidate had 2025 in the delegate count, that is a big number, more certainty. A sign of great popularity.

Fact is neither has a clear advantage.

The superdelegates need to do what they are there for and support the candidate that has the best chance of winning, in THEIR JUDGMENT.

Posted by: Comment | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Posted by: motiv8ted | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Let us remember, there is no rule that the superdelegates have to follow the pledged delegate count. If they did, then we wouldn't need superdelegates.

Superdelegates are there to ensure that the most electable candidate in November gets the nomination.

The two candidates are in a virtual tie. If either candidate had 2025 in the delegate count, that is a big number, more certainty. A sign of great popularity.

Fact is neither has a clear advantage.

The superdelegates need to do what they are there for and support the candidate that has the best chance of winning, in THEIR JUDGMENT.

Posted by: Comment | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Posted by: motiv8ted | April 18, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Skinsfan1978 - Wow, I'm glad you're not in charge, with your ideas, Liberia would look awfully tame. Anyone who speaks against any of America's actions 'hates' America?

Even those who stand against the REAL TORTURE we have inflicted on people? Even those who stand against our extraordinary renditions? Or our secret prisons? Or our suspension of habeas corpus? Or our decision to lock up people without the right to challenge their imprisonment, a fair trial, or the ability to contact the outside world to obtain relief from unjust arrest?

Does speaking against the injustices done in America's name (even those done centuries ago) earn the badge of hating America?

Silly me, I thought I loved it, and was defending it from those who would use it's might to do wrong and injustice, as has happened repeatedly under Bush. Instead, I assert that YOU hate America, for not demanding accountability from those doing wrong in her name, by allowing unjust wars to continue, and injustices to be done to people around the planet, that you are suborning the destruction of America, by not demanding ACCOUNTABILITY from her leaders!

In reality YOU hate America,and you don't grasp what it stands for, asserting that:
"'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"

Oddly enough, we aren't technically AT WAR! Only Congress can declare it, and it hasn't done so. Bush was given the ability to use military force (inadvisably), and he has disastrously misused it.

Posted by: Fred Evil | April 18, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

gbook. everybody in the nation saw rev. wright. it ain't made up and the idea that8000000 middle class blacks are racists is as easy to believe as 8000.

Posted by: gunclinger. | April 18, 2008 7:07 PM

So now it's 8 million racist blacks. No wonder Hillary's losing, her supporters are all math-challenged. (But not meth-challenged!)

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 18, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

" endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February. The group was initially established in 1999 to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, and now claims 3.2 million members.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."
Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have." About Clinton's remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, "I'll let my statement stand as is."

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.

go to Huffington post to listen to audio recording of Hillary's remarks.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 18, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Polling at this time of the cycle has nothing to do with the general election. Most people are not comparing Obama to McCain. Polls only are somewhat meaningful about primaries.

Gov Rendell says 7% for Clinton. He is probably right. Unfortunately, the election continues.

Posted by: Ron M | April 18, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us repudiate a land that's so called free,
Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair,
As we raise our voices in a bitter solemn prayer.

God Da-mn America,
Land that I loathe.
Stand astride her, yet despise her
With a chip on a shoulder from above.
From the plantations, up to Harvard
To the Jews rich from our blood
God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.

Posted by: Harold Icky | April 18, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

People that support Obama
Durbin compares American soldiers to Nazis
Michelle believes America is a mean country (Obama supporters are)
Wright hates America and whites
Ayers hates America
Kerry trashes American military to California students, telling them that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq." (There are people with degrees that choose to protect this country from liberal nuts)
Howard Dean, 'The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong. I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam.'

Senator Kennedy said, blamed the actions on a few to the entire American military saying, 'We now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, United States management.'

I agree with what Abraham Lincoln once wrote,'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.'
It's time to stand against those that blame America for the world's problems!

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 18, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

skinsfan1978 - Don't let the MSM rhetoric fool you, the media are talking about him because the people are talking about him. Obama brings hope, and is convincing enough to make people want to FOLLOW.

You know what that is? It's something we haven't had for nearly eight years.


Leaders aren't elected, they aren't made, they are who they are because of what they do, and what they say. They excite people, they interest people, they inspire people. They make people WANT to follow them, because their ideas and plans get folks fired up and hopeful!

Bill Clinton was a good leader, Reagan was phenomenal, Hillary can't, McCain can't either, and Bush couldn't find how to be one with GPS, a roadmap and a flashlight.

Posted by: Fred Evil | April 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The question should be : Who will definitely lose?

Just look at the mathematics. Obama has a real problem getting white, Hispanic, and Asian votes in the general election. For instance, if Obama can only get about 30% of the white votes (especially low in battle ground states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey), in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, he will get even lower % in the general election becasue most of the white votes are for Republican traditionally. Even with 100% of black votes, it just does not have enough for him to win. You call it racism or not (by the way, there are racist blacks too), it's the reality.

Plus the tension existed between the blacks and the Hispanics and Asians has a long history. Both the Hispanics and the Asians are afraid of "black power" in any shape and form. If Obama becomes the president, they are afraid that the blacks in the neighborhood will be greatly enpowered and cause great damage to their standing in the society.

On the other hand, Clinton may not be able to generate the same level of enthusiasm among the black voters as Obama can, but Clinton will still get vast majority of the black votes. Plus she can count on the 53% of the white votes (Woman votes) and the Hispanic and Asian votes. The white male votes will ultimately decide the winner between Clinton and McCain.

The bottomline is this: Obama mathematically can not win. Clinton can win if she can get close to 40% of the white male vote. It's a probability game. Clinton has a better chance to win versus Obama's zero chance.

Posted by: GY | April 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

RE: Comment from Michelle, that's a great catch, the identical posts at 3:37 and 6:53! Makes one wonder how much of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' may actually be true? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

Maybe not as an actual organization per se, but a number of people with similar views, trying to manipulate the system and people, with an organized distribution of talking points! Kind of scary actually.

Posted by: Fred Evil | April 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Hilary would make a better Senator than President. You can win an election with 50% +1 vote (sometimes with less as the child Bush did) but you can't govern and lead.

Obama will trounce the old, slow and boring McCain. Vote for the past or the future? America always votes for the future. The Family values voters aren't going to vote for a guy who dumped his sick wife to hook up with a young blond heiress. The evangelicals aren't going to be enthusiastic about a guy who called their leaders evil. The jingoistic border vigilantes won't be happy that he won't seal the borders and the rest of the country is made as hell for his whole-hearted support of the Bush-child.

Save America from Republicans!

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Stephanopoulos and Gibson asked Obama questions the Obama media would not ask. A large number of the media elite have jumped on the Obama bandwagon and lost sight of reporting the facts, they defend Obama. Liberal Reporters that cover Obama may be afraid of being labeled racist, so they have lost their objectivity and parrot each other in their support of Obama. These same reporters did not feel Hillary's pain when she was ganged banged by Russert and Williams during the MSNBC debate. The media feel their propaganda campaign will result in Obama being elected President.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I am baffled as to how a man who will be 72 years old, wants to remain in Iraq forever,wants more taxcuts while the infrastructre is falling apart, could even have a ghost of a chance at the presidency.

Posted by: Shag | April 18, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is unelectable. She is an angry, bitter, vicious woman who will do anything to get what she wants.

Posted by: Hillary is a Bozo | April 18, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the article on electability is that it doesn't address the huge difference between Hillary and Obama concering their ability to persuade and inspire voters. She has done nothing comparable to Obama's race speech in which he reversed the gathering tide against him. His most recent dip--some argue it didn't happen--because of the gotcha issues and his mediocre performance at the last debate, that dip only is an occasion for a new brilliant adjustment coming up. He has established that he can counterpunch very effectively. She hasn't been able to recover from the self-inflicted damage she's suffered during the last few months. Look for Obama to overwhelm her as he gathers himself to increasingly better handle the only thing that has seemed to her to work, spurious attacks against him.

My suggestion is that he stop arguing the facts involved in the guilt by association charges and take the offense, pointing out decisively that these arguments have impact because voters "unconsciously" infer from a negative association that, for instance, Obama supports bombing the Pentagon. He needs to expose that implicit charge and show it's ludicrousness. He needs then to go even more on the offensive, not trashing people for talking trash, but challenging them to make an explicit charge of wrong doing and then provide evidence for it. That will help people see through this partly effective ploy and innure them to it. He needs to keep patrolling our vulnerability to all of these guilt by association and guilt by spurious inference and increasingly help us to decisively see through these machinations.

Posted by: John H. McFadden | April 18, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

With all the tiresome, repetitive hate Hillary rant and cant we have to put up with, I don't recall hearing hardly anyone saying that Senator Clinton would actually make a bad President.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The important question isn't Obama's electability, it is Hillary's. While I believe she is head and shoulders more competent than the current occupant of the Oval Office, she is the only candidate to cause an immediate, intense, visceral reaction from 50% of the US. HALF of this country immediately begins to froth at the mouth, whine about the word 'IS' and become increasingly irrational to the point of idiocy. Given the choice between banishing Hillary or Satan from the universe, they would opt for Hillary's removal every time! That these folks also have the ability to cast votes in an election she is running for, should be of HUGE concern to the Democrats!!

Nobody votes FOR a candidate anymore, they all vote for the lesser of two evils. And when Hillary is undoubtably the greater of two evils (to a MINIMUM of half of the country), even when compared with Satan, her electability is not only suspect, it is DOOMED.

The greatest threat on election day is turnout, and if Hillary's name is on the ballot, you will see Republican turnout like never before. The personal and intense anger towards her from the right, is rather similar to the anger directed towards Bush from the left. VERY deep, VERY serious, and VERY personal. They wouldn't trust this person to fetch the newspaper, much less run the country.

I have no problem with a woman president, and am certain one will hold the office one day, it just won't be Hillary.

In fact, a vote for Hillary will only be a vote for McCain in the end, it may not be right, it may not be fair, but in the world of reality we dwell in, it just IS.

And to all those who whine about Reverend Wright, McCain's sycophancy to Jerry Falwell is far more concerning to me. Wright's anger stems from centuries of anger due to slavery and oppression, not merely incessant whining about Xtianity not being the only faith in America anymore. I could quote all kinds of offensive and ignorant Falwellisms here, but I'll leave that to you if you are even open-minded enough about it to check. Obama had the good sense to disavow Wright and his comments, though in context his words carry some wisdom. McCain has yet to reach for the Listerine to wash the taste of Jerry Falwell out of his mouth, and that leaves an awful taste in mine, John McCain.

Posted by: Fred Evil | April 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I always wondered about sudden surge of Obama, an African American on the political front. Digging a little deeper gave me a glimpse of what is happening in the African continent has direct impact on the establishment wanting an African American in the White House for propaganda purpose. The Chinese are making inraods in Africa diplomatically, financially, economically and politically in every country. They are beating USA and Europe at their own games with heavily subsidized government owned companies giving virtually free many things than Africa needs. In return, they make those countries right off their future by getting exclusive mining rights at dirt price. To regain our influence, we need an African American as the president. Or we will be locked out by the Chinese on the African continent. I am sure most of the Africans are not fond of the White America. Many who studied in USA faced blatant resentment and discrimination. So, our remedy is Obama.

Posted by: om | April 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Dan, write these few words down, and save them til November, by whihc time you'll have wasted a million of the things. (words)

Obam 54%
McCain 43%

Only a boob can't see that Hillary is toast, and that McCain is a B-Teamer on his best day.

Posted by: Rob L. | April 18, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Balz, like so many others in the MSM strains to write that "neither can make a convincing case of electability". Are we to believe that the candidate who is thought to be dishonest by 6 out of 10 DEMOCRATS is electable?

Posted by: AZoldguy | April 18, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Dan, your a smart guy, how come you keep talking about Clinton?

She doesn't stand a chance in hell in either the Dem or National race. And you flog her candidacy all day long.

Yellow fellow much?

Posted by: Rob l. | April 18, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The media seems to be searching for a "great white hope", and what they dont get is that most Americans are ready for change. The media treats Obama like Jack Johnson, how dare he try to be president. I like him and think he will win.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | April 18, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

john adams,i just hope evryone keeps it together and it doesn't turn out in the streets of chicago like the bears losing the superbowl.

Posted by: gunclinger | April 18, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse


Obama will sweep into office on a generational wave? With Kennedy, Kerry, Nunn, Richardson, Dodd, Leahy, et al? What generation are you talking about?

Posted by: John | April 18, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

What happens when all these political relics that endorsed Obama discover they have boarded the Titanic and head for the lifeboats at the same time? That will be worth watching.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

the dems can beat mccain with a clear demonstration of the sort of government the right wants, the sort of behavior the right has displayed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama will sweep into office on a generational wave, taking the country back from the liars & manipulators, just in time. (Late, actually, but that's what he has to work with) Clinton & McCain don't stand a chance though the media will keep the show going and their ratings high till November.

More than 1.3 million donors so far, and the Clinton machine broken!

Hope is hard to hear after the Reagan, Clinton, & Bush years, but it's real.

Posted by: Garret | April 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama's church had 8000 members? No wonder he stayed in. That's 8000 voters. If I ever decide to run for office, remind me to join the biggest chruch I can find.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

vidal,enlightened people? i thought i saw some people who looked lighter.

Posted by: gunclinger | April 18, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, Mr. Balz, but this is just foolish.

If Americans don't know by now why McCain is useless to them and to their country, not to mention downright dangerous (as if we hadn't had enough of that already), then he's all they deserve.

Republican warmongering, ignorance, arrogance, corruption, downright lying and greed should be all any sane person needs to be quite sure that the time has come to try something else - almost ANYTHING else.

Most people agree that neither Clinton nor Obama come across as idiots. On the other hand, almost any Republican you care to name is open to that charge today. (It was not always so)

Live with it, Mr. Balz.
Your neocon empire is going to have to wait.
Americans are still too smart to fall for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The woman is untrustworthy?

I think the dishonest and untrustworthy candidate is Obama.

But the really dishonesty rests with the old line democrats and now firends of bill who turned on the woman.

Just when the economy is declining and burden of that will fall on women and children, all the male democrats whom women supported and now stabbing the woman in the back and will block her win.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 18, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of being -- and not being -- honest with each other, speaking of pre-digested talking points:

So far on this discussion thread, there are two comments, seemingly word-for-word identical in content, with the title "Obama and the Country of Doom." One of the comments is signed by "Marian Williams" and posted April 18, 2008 3:37 PM. The other is signed by "Saul Calliway" and posted April 18, 2008 6:53 PM.

I urge the Washington Post editors to leave both of these comments up. They show evidence of this kind of fake "participation" in discussions. Some people are coming to these discussions and posting talking points and/or entire articles that do not come from them.

This is part of the situation with the US political system right now. Some people are being spoon-fed words that they then post as if it comes from them (or whatever name they claim to have). The people who posted this identical pre-written comment did not cite a source for the writing they posted -- this practice implies they have written it themselves. Obviously, however, they did not.

Spin, hype, lies, fakeness, stubborn and willful lack of human-ness and respect for one another -- these are part of our practice as a nation. Talking points and pre-made "commentary" substitutes for real participation that is based on careful and intelligent attempts to understand and assess what is happening and to make our decisions based on that understanding and assessment.

Senator Obama's strength and his weakness is that his practice and perspective rejects that kind of fake-participation. He asks himself and he asks us to be real about what is going on, to be real with each other, to reject the plastic fake spin approach to being part of this country.

I really don't know if we, collectively as a nation, are up to this challenge. But as I see things, decisions about whether we will step up and be real are squarely in front of us right now.

Posted by: Michelle | April 18, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: VIDAL | April 18, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

How can Hillary win the "electability" argument when, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, "a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy"?

(In the poll, she scores 41 percent for "honest and trustworthy," compared to 61 percent for Obama and McCain.)

Posted by: Durant Imboden | April 18, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

gbook. everybody in the nation saw rev. wright. it ain't made up and the idea that8000000 middle class blacks are racists is as easy to believe as 8000.

Posted by: gunclinger. | April 18, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

obama has surrounded himself with America haters...people who would have America destroyed and neutered...How can any American support this white hater and America basher...will ayers be a member of the cabinet, maybe secretary of defense. maybe wright will be the white house chaplain and will farakhan and the new black panthers replace the secret service...will the dems remember that any President does not have absolute power and it's the congresses job to oversee the white house not just give him a pass...This is your America, think twice about your future because the only one to blame is yourselfs, no one else...

Posted by: dwight | April 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

That's right sheeple, keep reading WaPoPravda and the rest of the fascist MSM. Keep reading the propaganda that will lead you to the slaughter, again.

The fact is, Obama is most certainly electable over McCain.

Just look at the war economy that has bankrupted America, destroyed our greatness, and shredded our Constitution.

Why in heaven's name would anyone with half a brain want to vote for more of the same by voting for either McCain or Clinton?

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, OJAI CA | April 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, this is hysterical.

First he's a Muslim. Then he's a Christian who belongs to a racist church (who knew 8000 upper middle class black taxpayers were so bigoted). Then he was in the pocket of a slumlord who froze people to death. Then he was doing lines in the back of a limo with a gay hooker not named Jeff Gannon. Then he was plotting to blow up the US with a Weatherman. Now he's in league with the Mafia, And all the time, he hates America -- the country that made him a multi-millionaire -- because he won't wear a flag lapel pin.

Seriously, who can read all that and take it seriously? No wonder his numbers keep going up, NOBODY is stupid enough to believe all that. I'm waiting for the investigative report on how his kids play tag "rough" during elementary school recess.

The better question is, why are so many rich and powerful people afraid of him?

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 18, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

the left has hyjacked the democrat party. neither one of these two can win. the american people are tired of middle of the road bush but that doesn't mean they want to turn the country into a freak show.

Posted by: gunclinger | April 18, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Gee, how disingenuous to claim what "the Republicans" are gonna do as an excuse for doing what you claim they will. Why wait for them? Hillary can do it, to the disgust of thinking Democrats. She has shown herself to be a liar and a poor loser. What a shame. She should have been more honest and classy.

As for the media, they have kept her alive as much as anyone, all so they can keep a fight going. She has no chance remaining for all practical purposes. She just wants to continue fund-raising so she can pay her debts, and repay her loan.

Posted by: michael4 | April 18, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

26% of Democrats are polled as racist. HO HO HO.

Posted by: dogmad | April 18, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

In the last debate I finally realized that John Edwards was right in saying that he was the only grown-up on the stage. How can one of these two children bickering about a lapel pin be taken seriously as contenders for the Presidency of the greatest nation on Earth and the supreme command of the US Forces?

Posted by: Bodo | April 18, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the Country of Doom

Obama spells doom for this country. Not only because of his dubious affiliations with mob members like Rezko and criminals like Auchi, but because of his lack of experience and bias education especially his bizarre religious affiliations. He is like silly putty; able to change his ideas for the public as needed so as to achieve his goal as supreme leader.

His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo "Roy" Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama's military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and "Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel," or Obama's super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama's most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.

And besides all this questionable laundry in Obama's life, another serious question is why is Obama protected and promoted by the media? Is this also being directed from behind the scenes? The American public has been fooled before and I guess those in power know we can be fooled again. (Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the invasion of Iraq...).

The fact that Obama has made it this far demonstrates the collective lack of discriminative intelligence and education of this country. And nothing demonstrates this better than how well Obama plays his black card; which plays on our fear of being labeled a racist.

Posted by: Saul Calliway | April 18, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone seen Webb Hubbell lately? Is he still alive? Isn't it strange he's no longer available for pictures?

I wonder if he's on retained to the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has not been fully vetted and could not win the general election. Does anyone really think the Republicans don't have tons of material to use against her (and Bill)? McCain would skate to the presidency if she were the Dem. nominee.

Posted by: Steve | April 18, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

@ kevin April 18, 2008 3:15 PM: You write that you "do not know this man" and have been reading and listening. I would be interested in knowing more about what you have been reading and listening to.

Also, I would be interested to know if you have actually read the books that Senator Obama has written.

I myself have only read the first one, Dreams From My Father. When combined with my observations of how he has actually been running his campaign (actions I can observe), the book gave me an excellent feel for who he is -- not just the content but also the way he approaches things, the way he thinks, the standards he uses to determine action.

There are also some other excellent articles online that lay out his perspectives, including a 1995 Chicago Reader article that has a lot of good info to help you make your assessment:

Based on my own values and judgment, I strongly feel that he should be the next president of the United States. That's my perspective based on careful observation and reflection.

I encourage you and others to make assessments and decisions that are based on careful reading, listening, and observing, and that are honest about your perspectives and where you are coming from.

My guess is that your "we still do not know this man" statement is not an honest statement from your experience. My guess is that it is repetition of a talking point rather than your claim that it is backed by an honest effort to gather information.

I would respect what you say (even if I disagreed) if it seemed to be coming from someone who really had been doing the reading and listening you claim. As someone with teaching experience in my past, I have a pretty good internal detector on these things -- my feeling is that you actually haven't done a good review of what's out there.

You can in fact get an excellent sense of who Senator Obama is and where he is coming from. If you had done the reading and listening you say you have done, then you would not be able to claim you don't know him. You could say that you don't like where he's coming from, that you disagree, that you don't want him to be president ... but not this "we don't know him" silliness.

My assessment of your comment is that you need to stop pretending, do your homework, and speak your actual mind rather than parroting talking points. I respect whatever opinion you have and urge you to vote your conscience. But please, be honest with yourself and with people reading what you have to say.

From where I stand, this country is faced with a really seriously important choice right now -- about who we are as a nation as reflected in who we choose as a leader. I don't know if this nation is mature enough to make the choice that I feel as the right one.

But whatever happens, this election is defining point for us, collectively. IMO, the least we can do is be honest with each other about where we're coming from and why we feel and think and act/decide as we each do.

Posted by: Michelle | April 18, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

This whold democratic primary is such a farce. If michigan and florida voters were allowed to be heard Clinton would be ahead. Punishing voters is wrong and very undemocratic.

I am so discusted with the democratic party. It is becoming very clear to me that they have misrepresented us all along. If changes aren't made to the whole nomination system I may never vote democrat again.

Posted by: reason | April 18, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

If you want a good look at the electability issue, go to

I started this election cycle a supporter of Hillary and voted for her in the California primary. I have since completely changed my mind and am fully for Obama.

Posted by: Ethan Q | April 18, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Democrats nominate candidates that they like. End of story. This electability stuff is nonsense -- you would have said that McCain was "unelectable" before Christmas.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 18, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse


How many posts can you write ripping Barack in the same day? You clearly have way too much time on your hands and should accept the fact that Annie Bosnia Clinton is history. She will keep wallowing in her gutter politics until the bitter end but it is over. Ask the Big Dog's former cabinet member & Super Delegate Robert Reich. The flood gates to Barack are opening...

Posted by: Shiva8 | April 18, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if it's ever occurred to Obama and Wright that it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them.
"The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America,'" shouted Wright at his congregation. "No, no, no. God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
I wonder if Obama ever considered the negative impact on young blacks from listening to these hateful and anti-white tirades. It's not as if Obama is blind to the influence of hate speech. When Don Imus made one careless remark about black female athletes, Obama was among the first to call for his firing. Fines and a temporary suspension weren't enough. Obama said he wanted Imus silenced so that his young daughters never had to hear such language.
Does Obama think it's good for his daughters and the black community when black leaders increase the black community's level of anger, defeatism, paranoia, cynicism, negativity and pessimism? Does he think it's good to jack up the level of the resentment and racism in a community that's already overdosed on rage and victimhood?
"Recent statistics show that more than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms," reports the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education. "One in every 10 black men between the ages of 25 and 29 is in prison."
On top of being murdered, blacks are also "more likely than any other group to be victims of serious violent crime," reports the Justice Department, which is defined as "rape, other sexual assaults, robbery or aggravated assault."
And we need more ranting and raving, more boiling with rage?
Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," Rev. Wright preaches to his congregation. In America, he asserted, "no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
The United States is "the number-one killer in the world," preached Wright, the "U.S. of K.K.K. A," a nation that only maintains its standard of living "by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."
For 20 years, Barack Obama drank the aforementioned Kool-Aid, never seeing the problem. That makes him a problem.

Posted by: jeff | April 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

By virtue of the fact that most of Bill Clinton's cabinet is not supporting her, you have to question the "ready from day one" claim.

I would guess they would know whether she is or not better than anyone and apparently they don't think so...

Posted by: Fred | April 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

There is no way Obama can win in the general. Young voters won't show up, Hillary supporters will go for McCain.
If Obama is the nominee, November's results will make McGovern's look competitive!

The Democrats only hope for a real race is Hillary.

Posted by: bz | April 18, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Most of the data illustrating Obama's electability over Clinton in a match-up against McCain is empty rhetoric of Obama supporters in the media. The primary polls have consistently shown that Clinton support is always underestimated in polls, and Obama's overblown. In New Hampshire, the polls predicted a rout of Clinton, but Obama lost. So was the case of Texas and Ohio. If at this stage when he has more delegates, Obama is outspending Clinton 5 to 1 in PA media ads, in addition to getting support from perceived Obama networks such as NBC and CNN. Still, no one is predicting an Obama win. They are all conceding that Hillary will win, naturally with reduced margin because of the lopsided advantage in TV ads and coverage. If he can't win now, how can any one say that he is more electable. I think that democratic party is in for a surprise in November if Obama is the nominee. He may catch up with McGovern's performance. Diehard democrats find it difficult to vote for him because of the emptiness of his record. Contrast it against McCain, and it tells you where we are headed. Republicans can't ask anything more than McCain vs. Obama run. That is where we are headed, because it is now pretty clear that barring a huge victory by Hillary in PA, Obama will be nominated. Obama is not giving me the feeling that he can take the heat, and his support among the people other than the young is fast vanishing. Help from young people alone is not going to elect a president, you need support from the core democratic constituencies such as the seniors, Regan democrats, women, Latinos, Asians etc., and I don't see Obama carrying these groups. The ochestrated campaign to deny Hillary the nomination will defenitely lead to a disastrous outcome for the democrats.

Posted by: Nathan | April 18, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

antiwhiner --

You may not care about counting all the votes but the rest of America does.

The only ones who are damaging the Democratic Party is Obama and his supporters.

According to Obama, he doesn't like Democratic Presidents anyway.

He only likes Republican ones.

He's not going to win anything.

If we nominate him, we'll lose.

Democrats can't afford to lose another presidential election, and Obama's completely and totally unelectable.

Posted by: Obama can't win, but he can cause Democrats to lose | April 18, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Quit the whining about Florida and Michigan.

1. The DNC warned them in advance if they moved their primaries, then the results would not count. These states did it anyway. If I warn you that if you poke yourself in the eye with a pointy stick, it will hurt, I am not going to have pity for you if you choose to do it.

2. Both candidates signed off on the DNC party actions. You Hillary supporters who are constantly moaning about this, why not ask your candidate what the heck she was thinking in "denying" these people their "democratic representation." Also, ask her to explain how this is not a flip-flop to want them included after signing off on the DNC decision. It's hypocrisy to only be for this now that you come out ahead.

3. To the individual who said that Obama is trying to "manipulate the vote." Excuse me but your candidate is the one who has been saying "there is no such thing as a pledged delegate" and insisting that the right thing for these delegates to do is to ignore the way their people voted. Granted, this is more "completely ignoring" the vote than manipulating it, but it's absolutely worse.

Anyway, get used to Obama being the candidate because he's going to win this thing. Hillary would rather see the party torn apart completely than to step out gracefully, so good luck to all.

Posted by: antiwhiner | April 18, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Repugs are NOT benefiting from the Democratic struggle to nominate a competent candidate who isn't a shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, plagiarizing gas-bag with the mantra "God Da'mn America". Rather, the Repugs are currently benefiting from the fact that most voters do not actually understand AMNESTY-JOHN.

The "character" of AMNESTY-JOHN can be summed up in one word: BETRAYAL.

1. Wife BETRAYAL. When his wife was injured in an auto accident resulting in a severe limp, AMNESTY-JOHN didn't hesitate to divorce her, after numerous affairs, to marry-up into money. (His current wife is a multi-millionaire beer distributor who has refused to provide a single penny of her money to the AMNESTY-JOHN campaign, but her distribution warehouses reportedly employ dozens of illegals!)

2. Constituent BETRAYAL. AMNESTY-JOHN betrayed his constituents on many, many issues. Most notable is his total support for providing citizenship to illegal immigrants - an issue opposed by more than 70% of his constituents.

3. Party BETRAYAL. AMNESTY-JOHN is one of the few "Republicans" most likely to vote against or oppose the interests of his party. He's done it on taxes, spending, appointments, policy matters, social issues and on and on and on.

4. Country BETRAYAL. Several independent investigators have alleged that AMNESTY-JOHN betrayed both his country and fellow solders while a POW. They concluded that AMNESTY-JOHN provided military information to his captors in exchange for better food and medical treatment. AMNESTY-JOHN has made sure that such details of his military service will never be known since he used his senator-influence to have his military record PERMANENTLY SEALED FOREVER. Just what is AMNESTY-JOHN trying to hide?

5. Taxpayer BETRAYAL. AMNESTY-JOHN is one of the "Keating Five" slimebags that helped produce and profited from the saving and loan catastrophe in the 70's. LOOK IT UP!

If AMNESTY-JOHN is elected, the citizens of American will suffer intense "buyer's remorse" once he sets out on his own agenda - instead of the one American citizens want. Fortunately, once the true, disgusting character of AMNESTY-JOHN is known to the voters, they will run from this profane, senile, ill-tempered, war monger faster than you can say "IMPEACH DICKNBUSH".

Posted by: ALEX H. | April 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Do we have viable independent candidate yet?




Posted by: Sparky | April 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

@John Ryskamp: You say of Senator Obama: "He's a hood. He's organized crime."

You are familiar with the term "libel," right? As in: "Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others."

Your statements are not merely insulting and offensive, they are defamatory. Since they are also demonstrably false, they would also seem, in my humble opinion (and I am NOT a lawyer), to be libelous. Not many of the idiotic remarks on this discussion board sink to that level, but this one does, and you might want to think twice before posting another one like it.

The Post should also consider its role in publishing statements like yours, and in allowing such comments to remain on its web site.

We've learned from this campaign how low people are willing to sink in order to win (no need to specify, I'm sure), but someone somewhere needs to start calling the morons (in and out of the media) on this "anything goes" insanity, rather than accepting dunderheaded abuse and blatant falsehood as the new political norm.

This country is better than that.

Posted by: Spanky | April 18, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the press will ever get around to grilling McCain about specific instances where he's blown his stack or had mental lapses regarding facts? Someone should ask him why he treated his first wife and family so shabbily, or if he feels any remorse for the stinking way he treated the Native People of Arizona. I'd like for someone to ask him why he changed churches at age 71 if not to pander to the religious right. Maybe he could explain how he can be good for the average worker, when all of his advisers are industry lobbyist from special interest groups. Maybe someone could ask why he thinks himself smart enough to be president, since his academic record is so weak.

If pressing Obama about his relationship with his preacher is ok, then any of these would be valid questions.

Posted by: Javalation | April 18, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I am a democrat that is a conservative and I cannot stand republicans for giving us high gas prices, no increase in wages , a war without victory, that preaches hypocrisy flag waving and hypocrite religious actions and deeds, 45% devaluation in our standard of living, make it profitable for businesses to lay Americans off and give the jobs to china, India, Mexico, allows illegal thieves and job stealing people into our country as cheap labors again for businesses that pays them under the table. Spend our taxes like a dunking sailor, refuses to balance the budget and borrows billion upon billions and calls democrats tax and spend people, that spins and lies about everything, I can go on and on but the idiots will vote for McCain to keep this flag waving idiocy continual to destroy what little we have.

Posted by: GHM | April 18, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Socialist, and the corrupt media is hiding their misdeeds to support their agenda. This is not the Soviet Union where outright lies were fed to the masses as propaganda. We need to tear down the virtual Berlin Wall and drive out the liberal elitists and their goons!

Posted by: theaz | April 18, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Democrats can't afford to nominate someone with no experience and a history of multiple felonies, including grand theft auto and a repeated use of hard drugs.

How do we know he did those things?

He brags about them in his books.

That's not just arrogant.

Its nuts.

Posted by: Obama's unelectable | April 18, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

One comment said "the Republican slime machine". If there is a slime machine, it's Obama and his supporters such as his minister (anti-american), Nation of Islam, Rekzo, just to name a few. Obama is the pits. He would not be able to sweep his hand over his shoulder to clear the comments and questions as he did re the debate if he became president and had to tackle the other world leaders; he'd be a laughing stock. God protect the U.S.A. from one such as Obama. We do not want to see the people in the Middle East dancing if he's elected. GO MC CAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Millie Burt | April 18, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Reading poll numbers about McCain vs. Clinton or McCain vs. Obama at this stage in the game is ludicrous. Clinton and Obama have been beating up on each other (fairly or unfairly is irrelevant) while McCain has had a free ride. When the spotlight turns to McCain's foreign policy gaffes rather than simplistic arguments about flag pins, crazy pastors, and imagined sniper fire, the choice will be obvious.

I love Senator McCain, and would have voted for him over both Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004. But his window for the presidency has closed.

Nearly every House seat up for grabs is leaning Democrat. The Iraq War and the economy are the overriding concerns. There are no hot button social issues to exploit for votes in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania. The underlying sentiment in the country is anti-Bush, and the Democrats will have no problem whatsoever painting McCain as Bush Redux. All of this provides indication of an overwhelming Democratic victory at all levels in November.

The Democrats have a lot more shooting themselves in the foot to go before a Republican victory is a fait accompli. I don't doubt their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but to declare this race over at this point is absurd.

Posted by: P Diddy | April 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse


Manipulating the vote?

For someone to ask that a "vote" count when she was only one on the ballot, after saying that it wouldn't count, is the epitome of manipulation.

She can throw the kitchen sink, but it seems to be missing it's target.

Posted by: Steve | April 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

He's a drugged up, snobby wimp.

The drugs were why he fell flat on his face in the debate.

At least that's what the Republicans will say.

Come on, you know as well as we do that nobody's going to elect an admitted multiple felon who's crimes include grand theft auto and multiple cocaine felonies to be president.

Are you just pushing him because you're racist and sexist?

You can tell us. We're your friends.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 18, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

We Americans deserve answers to all those questions asked in the last debate about Obama's dubious relationships with men who hate or damn America, after all he is being considered for the Presidency of the United States of America and whoever is elected will be the Commander in Chief responsible for the security of our country.

We didn't get clear answers and we will continue to ask the tough questions. OBAMA'S ELECTABILITY RESTS ON ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION:

Posted by: MANOLETE | April 18, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

The polls are bad measures at this point. Nobody really knows how Obama or Clinton would measure up against McCain in the fall. However, the trajectory of the nomination campaign so far is insightful: Hillary Clinton has lost support the more she makes her case; Barack Obama has gained support the more people see of him. The Democrats' best bet ought to be clear, but this hand-wringing and uncertainty is bound to hand the election to McCain anyway.

Clinton supporters shouldn't worry, though. Pummeling Obama will get them a favorable candidate one way or another. On foreign policy, McCain and Clinton wouldn't be all that different. On domestic issues, McCain is actually as much or more of a liberal than Clinton is in many respects.

Posted by: blert | April 18, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is just cleverly attacking. Of course Obama is ahead in the polls, ahead of her and ahead of McCain. He is the most electable -- but the main thing is, he is the one the populace has chosen as their candidate. So be it. Is Clinton electable? Apparently not -- a large percntage can't stand the idea of another Clinton in the White House. Will the Republican sneer and smeer corpse be out in full force. Yes. But I do not think that the nation as a whole will be fooled by charges that Obama is a Muslim, a Black Panther, a racist, an elitist, or whatever else they will cook up. If they are fooled, they will deserve at least 4 more years of their misery.

Posted by: frank burns | April 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse




Posted by: BOO-HOO | April 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton flaks always make me laugh.
Is Obama a drugged up vicious thug, or an ineffectual, snobby, wimp?

Here is some last minute advice:

You gotta get your smears on a single line of march.

You can't hurt Obama because you say so many things that can't all be true of the same person. The Clintons are never accused of opposite character traits, that is why the ever growing millions of people who despise them have so much hate.

Hillary should have stuck with the tears, that was the high point of her popularity.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

No Matter which candidate you are for, this election is too important not to have the facts straight before you type them out to the world. Both candidates have had their share of "not quite telling the whole story" but Obama did not work for Ayers, he served on a board with him (along with many others)for a group that gives out community grants for the underpriviledged in Chicago. To keep a grasp on the reality of both candidates, please go to:
Thank you

Posted by: Debby | April 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

He needs more soft pillows. LOL

Posted by: jy2008 | April 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

At this point, none of the candidates needs to say another word. I don't care who gets the nomination, I'm voting for Obama even if I have to write his name in. With Hillary and McCain there is no lesser of two evils. They're both horrible. Hillary has shown herself to be the slimiest, most spiteful, cheap, ugly politician since, well, our current president. If she has to scorch the earth to win, what has she really won. McCain may or may not be an honorable man, but he is old, can not control his temper, and is a warhawk who equals the current administration in his zeal for war. He sold himself out when he gave up on the torture issue. He was the one man who could have made the greatest difference, and he surrendered to Bush. Politics makes me sad.

Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

13% of Republicans are polled as racist. HO HO HO.

Posted by: Maddog | April 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"There is no question that Obama...looks like a less formidable candidate today than he did a few months ago...."

No question, Dan? Only a few months ago, Obama was one of several Democratic presidential contenders. Today he's the reluctant front-runner.

It's true that your newspaper and other MSMedia have said that Wednesday's debate showed Obama's vulnerabilities. But it's now the ambush detail -- ABC, Gibson and Stephanopoulos, Clinton (with Chelsea looking on while being looked upon by the camera), McCain actively on the sideline -- who are seriously under fire.

Thus these questions: "Looks like" to whom? Does it depend on what the meaning of "formidable" is?

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 18, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

What I like is these tough fighter HRCers are so scared of Republicans they would be willing to let them pick the Demo nominee? What an inspiring argument. And no one believes Hillary is vetted. By a long shot.

Posted by: Lanny Davis Jr | April 18, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

This is part of the article from the Chicago Tribune you mentioned..

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

Posted by: Debra | April 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it, everywhere I go it's the same, my PHD brother-in-law, fraternity and veteran brothers, neighbors, fellow workers and friends, civic league members and everyone that I talk to on the street so to speak.... most do not want or will not vote for either Hilary or Obama and don't want McCain as President....though some would vote for him as a last resort.....speaking for myself, I want more choices or have none of the above on the who are they that seem so hyped up about Obama or Hilary? one is hyped about McCain....something is very wrong and strange.....although just about everyone hates Bush....good thing for him that evil prayers never come true....

Posted by: Robert | April 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has not been fully vetted. We don't know all the ways that she will be sunk by the GOP. She talks generally about her baggage, but we have not seen those attacks at her yet. It would be disastrous. They have stuff that will be dusted off from the 90s that everyone has forgotten, but it will be used for sure. And there is so much of it. And then think... what is the difference between her and McCain... both hawkish, both Washington insiders, both the same old politics. She does not offer a clear difference with McCain.

Posted by: Len | April 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Nominating Obama would be political suicide for the Democratic Party.

Obama's own books ensure his defeat.

Read Obama's books.

They're a treasure trove for Republican 527's.

Buying, Selling and using Cocaine is a FELONY.

Obama's admitted, in his own words, that he purchased and used Cocaine multiple times.

When happens when he gets asked in a debate with McCain --

Mr. Obama - How many times did you either PURCHASE or USE HARD DRUGS like COCAINE?

How does he answer that question?

What happens when every American knows his history of grand theft auto, not to mention his history of hard drug use, because the detailed information on it, not to mention the fact that he spent 20 years with a racist that hates whites, is in every voter's mailbox and in every robo-call?

How many votes does he get after that?

Posted by: OBAMA FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE | April 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

From the NYT --

February 28, 2008, 6:14 pm
Why I'm Afraid of the Clintons
By Dan Schnur

If it's not the first rule of Republican politics, it should be: never, ever, ever underestimate anybody whose last name is Clinton. Not Bill, not Hillary. Not Chelsea, not even George. They're very good at what they do, and when they're about to be written off for dead, that's when they're at their very best.
We've counted out the Clintons before: during the New Hampshire primary in 1992, after the death of health care reform and the Republican takeover of Congress, and at the height of the impeachment brawl a few years after that. On each of those occasions, we had convinced ourselves that this was going to be the end of this unique family's political journey. Each time, we were wrong.
When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, I promised myself I would not be fooled again. As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team, I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I've always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don't like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them. But they are very good at what they do. And if someone can knock them out in the playoffs -- whether it's the New York Giants or a senator from Illinois -- I'm just as happy not to have to go up against them when the stakes are at their highest.
So throughout the Democratic primaries, I've been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She's certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we've been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I'd still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.
There's something other than superstition at work here: there's also a question of ideological positioning. Many of my fellow Republicans don't believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator. By contrast, Mr. Obama's voting record has been designated by the respected and nonpartisan National Journal as the most liberal of any of the Senate's 100 members. This is not merely an epithet: it represents a series of policy choices and legislative votes that leave Senator Obama to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Even the most inspirational and inclusive language in the world will face a stern test in the face of accusations on that front.
Without yet knowing the specifics of his record in office, general election voters are beginning to display an instinctual awareness of Senator Obama's potential shortcomings. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll released earlier this week showed Senator Clinton defeating John McCain on the question of which candidate would best handle issues relating to the economy and immigration, while Senator Obama came up short against Senator McCain on both questions. While the differences were not as notable, Hillary Clinton also matched up better than Barack Obama against John McCain on questions relating to health care and on terrorism. (Senator Obama ran three points better than Senator Clinton against John McCain on Iraq, the only issue on which he outpaced her.)
Which brings us back to the question of change versus experience. While Senator McCain is an insurgent and a maverick, he is also 71 years old and he has been a member of Congress for roughly a quarter of a century. Not surprisingly, both Democrats defeated Senator McCain on the question of which candidate would bring necessary change to Washington, Senator Obama more decisively than Senator Clinton.
But the debate over change -- and perhaps age -- may be overshadowed by the overwhelming margin (53 percent to 22 percent) by which voters say that Senator McCain has "the right experience" instead of Senator Obama, almost three times as large as his advantage over Clinton. American voters have made it clear that they want change, but in the middle of a difficult war and an impending recession, they want reassurance as well. Far more than against Senator Clinton, a McCain campaign against Senator Obama could benefit from the perception among voters that John McCain is better prepared for the presidency.

Posted by: Hillary will win by a landslide. Republicans know it. | April 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

The sight of the Pair of them makes me Sick. There is actually few things I care to be reminded of LESS!

And it is still just the Primaries!

Bravo Dimocrats! I could not have hurt your chances worse than you already have! ;~)

I am sure I am not the only one who is SICK of O'Billary!

NOW, if we could just get McCain to say "Mitt is My VP", and not another WORD until November!;

It will be a Landslide! :-)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 18, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I think it is funny that when I give an interview to a person applying for a job I am not supposed to ask age, gender, ethnic, marriage, etc type questions. And if I do and that person doesn't get hired for the job, then they can sue over discrimination. But for presidents, we ask them all of those questions. I understand you want to know where they stand on an issue, but what if we polled the entire country, forced you to leave your name by your standing on an issue, and then judged you by your opinions instead of what kind of person you are, or how qualified you are for a position? Good thing getting a job other then elected officials is easier. I wouldn't have a job if my opinions on an issue mattered, would you?

Posted by: ai3d | April 18, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Obama has gotten 80 superdelegates to the Clintons' 5 since February fifth.

You have to give all the credit to the Clintons for this. It is not that Obama is so great, it is that the Clintons are so awful. They had eight long years to prepare for this campaign, with the Republicans causing and suffering one disaster after another. They had a huge lead and as soon as they started being who they are, they lost it. The Clintons are not lovable losers, they are despicable losers.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The main reason that the superdelegates need to finish this off by June 3 (last primary day) is that collusion of Hillary Kool-Aid drinkers and partisan Republicans are using a lazy, compliant media to rip down our nominee. It is important to settle this as soon as possible so we can say to all Democrats: "It is time to get inside your party's tent and support our candidate." The fact that a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama is still leading in the polls versus both his Democratic and Republican opponents after the trashing he has been taking gives me a lot of hope about our ability to succeed in the end.

Posted by: Chuck | April 18, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Don't care about superdelegates, don't care about endorsements, don't care about college kids. I vote on issues and character. If Obami is the nominee, I will vote for McCain.

Obama is a hypocrite, arrogant, condescending, poster child of affirmative action who pulls the race card whenever he can. He disgusts me.

He will not fight for equal rights and he will not fight for equal pay for equal work.

He is not a fighter - when the going gets tough he will roll over. Help us all.

Posted by: no-way-obami | April 18, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

If Obama truly wishes to save the country, he needs to focus on the tanking economy. Telling a bunch of unemployed or underemployed industrial workers in the Midwest that they've lost their jobs because of outside forces is ridiculous. They lost their jobs because they priced themselves out of the market and because they went on strike too often. Mexicans and Chinese are inexpensive and they don't go on strike. It's that simple.

There are plenty of happy non-unionized auto workers in the U.S., working for foreign auto makers like Toyota and Nissan. Obama doesn't get in front of them and tell them how we're going to take their tax dollars to prop up the dying U.S. auto makers. Yet, that seems to be what he wants to do. Nothing else will save those jobs.

Nothing, that is, except Republican ideas of supply side and tax reform. But since Obama is against Bush's tax cut and would, presumably, raise taxes as soon as possible, the economy will continue to tank.

Obama appears to have no solution to the real health care problems, e.g. the growing shortage of primary care doctors, the poor medicine that results from HMO guidelines and malpractice lawsuits. There is a widely held notion disseminated by the Democrats that health care is a "right". Yet, they never step up to the plate and provide a way to pay for this "right".

The Democrats are empty talk, as usual, and the right wing of the Republican party is a mixture of economic common sense and religious nuttery. McCain appears to be the only one with even a concept of how to address the great economic challenges of the next twenty years.

Posted by: T. Traub | April 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the issue to all the negative vibes is that the voters need to look at having another four years of GWB with McCain. I was a McCain supporter in 2000, but he has changed so much that to have him in the White house would be a continuation of what we have now with a few modifications.

No more Iraq, the elite wealthy class, no healthcare, no loss of jobs, no non-bid contracts, no Joseph Liberman!

Posted by: jerry rubin | April 18, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse


The 44th president of the United States

President Barack Obama


Posted by: + | April 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Just exactly what percentage of the voting age are the 'young' voters you state in your article Mr. Balz?

Give some substance to the numbers in all age groups and how solid is that vote.

Wil the so called new young voters stick with Obama after he is hammered and exposed as a phoney during the campaign against MdCain?

What is the track record the superdelegates are gauging anyway?

No experienced ward politician will bet on Obam's support. In fact, no one in the party thinks he will turn around and thank his supporters for anything.

Posted by: John Adams1 | April 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama's only problem is that a biased or complacent media is falsely depicting him as a Muslim, terrorist loving, America hating elitist who, even worse, is a wimp. If he can survive that, he can survive anything.

Posted by: semakweli | April 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The press has all the right in the world to question Obama in the BitterGate and now that Obama worked for terrorist William Ayers. He said he was 8 when Ayers bombed New York. Nice try. But he was 30something when he served on a board with Mr. Ayers in the 1990's, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid, underlined PAID directorship position. They worked together, attended fundraisers together, Ayers held fundraisers and was a contributor to Obama's Chicago's campaign, plus they are neighbors and visited each other quite often. Enough said. This relationship deserves being vetted. As an adult Obama made the decision to work with a terrorist. This is a legitimate issue, the judgment and associations of the possible nominee. Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections. It goes directly to his associations with Farrahkan, Wright, Ayers, Auchi and Refko. This needs to be fully vetted.

Posted by: Leanza Cornett | April 18, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

what's come with these so-called 'superdelegates'? are they like some extra-terrestrial creatures that don't know a thing about what's happening on the (american) political scene?

they talk as if nothing has happened in san francisco lately & obama didn't utter his insulting "bitter" remarks & diatribe against the little people of pennsylvania & other smalltown fellows.

they continue to rant about what for them is the seeming irrelevance of the philly debate, where obama was put on the hot seat for the many inconsistencies & flaws in his character & deeds.

they quibble on what's for them is the unimportance of the negative attacks on obama, even faulting hillary for it, as if it's hillary who's the guilty party, when it's obama who committed those misdemeanors & who's the cause of all those unfavorable discussions about his unsavory quips & habits.

to cap it all, they take a leaf from obama & then segue on what's for them--just like for obama--is the most important issue in these elections: jobs. everything else they treat as mere 'campaign minutiae.'

oh, so. & i thought these people are 'superdelegates' because they are endowed with an intelligence far better than those possessed by ordinary voters. from what presently obtains, compared to these 'superdels,' it's the ordinary mortals, the ordinary americans who are even more perceptive, more observant, more thoughtful of what's really happening around, moreso of late.

why, we ask these superdels, should legitimate plaints about obama's quirks of character be treated as a mere 'negative' thing or, worse, just one of those 'campaign minutiae'? i thought character is the man. then, by this rule, anything else that obama speaks of is suspect, because he, himself, is suspect.

questions about obama's flawed character isn't mere whining, or a sub-topic to the issue on electability.

the concern about obama's quirks of character should be paramount to all other concerns in this campaign. everything else becomes secondary, jobs, iraq, the american economy, america's tattered world image, etc., etc.

for how can obama inspire the american people with a questioned character? how can he lead the american nation with lingering & serious doubts about his entire being? how can he face other world leaders when he's bogged down by persistent attacks on his political persona?

it will definitely be a sorry sight when people wouldn't take him seriously,& even laugh behind obama's back, for he'd be seen nothing less than the legendary king "without clothes."

if this very valid concern is irrelevant to the superdels, if you want the american leader to be the world's laughing stock, then you aren't just worthy of your seats.

now that obama has been unhinged from his self-constructed pedestal, now that he's been unmasked as a phony crusader, a two-timing reformer, we hope these superdels will cease to regard him like some sort of an aztec god.

i have a 'tip' for these superdels, to guide them in their ultimate choice.

let us first restate obama's tactic on how he rebuts his critics' attack on his character & his past associations with some shady characters.

what obama does is to label these criticisms as being 'part of washington politics,' a 'republican rollout,' 'politics of division,' 'traditional politics of knife-twisting'--which the american voters are now tired of & would want to do away with. in sum, obama tries to sidestep piercing questions about his character & past deeds by dismissing these issues altogether--& then segueing to the people's aspirations, hopes & dreams for a better life, more jobs, lower gas prices at the pump, more affordable foods in the kitchen for most americans, etc., etc.

in short, what's obama's saying is this: never mind my quirks of character, ignore my associations with questionable people, gloss over my serious misdeeds--& just concentrate on my plan on how to generate jobs for you, how to bring about lower gasoline prices & health care cost, etc.

but this is the political tactic long being employed by the de facto philippine president gloria macapagal arroyo, who has also a serious credibility problem, just like obama.

arroyo is seen in the philippines as an illegitimate president for having wrested power in 2001 from a duly elected president (joseph estrada) via a philippine supreme court newfangled theory on (estrada's alleged) 'constructive resignation,' which does not form part of any of the four constitutional grounds for removing the president. Arroyo is also viewed in our country as having stolen the 2004 elections from the hugely popular movie icon fernando poe , jr.(whose mother was a full-blooded american) through massive vote rigging. arroyo is also seen here as the most corrupt & most brutal philippine president ever.

to take the heat away from her, to parry off the filipino people's incessant demands for her resignation or toppling down, gloria argues that all these events are water under the bridge, so let's move on. she consequently points to her job in allegedly 'growing the philippine economy, improving its basic fundamentals, micro & macro, so as to build a better future for the filipinos.' or so she claims. but the fact remains that the poor in the philippines get poorer & poorer, & only gloria & her ilk & the few rich families get to grow financially.

yet, the nagging question about gloria's legitimacy remains, and aspersions about her 'lying, cheating & stealing presidency' continue to be cast.

obama has excellently appropriated arroyo's political tactic in his campaign. he thinks it is serving him well, as even the superdels are enamored of it, ignorant as they are of its historical precedent.

i just hope that, for their decision, this piece has informed them properly about it.

Posted by: jennifer potenciano | April 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It's a moot point who gets the Dem nomination...HRC or any objective, thinking person knows neither has a snowball's chance of being elected president.

Once again, the Dems in their infinite stupidity have handed the White House to the GOP...this time with McGeezer who will continue with 4-8 more years of war-mongering, corruption, and incompetence.

Helluva job, Dems!

Posted by: Checkered.1 | April 18, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm...with all these comments pertaining to Rev Wright I have to wonder - when did he jump into the presidential race? Surely your talking points must provide that info. Obama is no different than any other that attends church - using his intelligence and judgment to make the personal decision which teachings to abide by - again, no different than any other christian. I challenge anyone that attends church to state they agree 100% with everything they hear in church. It doesn't happen. In fact, a recent survey showed that the majority of Catholics don't agree with the churchs stance on birth control - yet they continue to attend mass. It's hypocritical to hold Obama to higher standards than we hold to other Christians. BTW, if you want to hold Obama responsible for the words and actions of his pastor - doesn't that mean that every catholic is responsible for the actions of the child mollesting priests. After all, it's their donations paying off the over $2 billion in damages. The same standard applies to all - you can't pick and choose. If Obama is complict, so is every Catholic. Get over the distractions and focus on the real issues already.

Posted by: Julie | April 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not electable in November.

Every other day a new revealation comes out about him, and it is not good.

His misreprestations about himself are exposed now so routinely he seems to be a pathological liar.

The guy is really a phoney and worse for the democratic party hi is unelectable.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

These comments are all very nice, but the column was about what the superdelegates should do - is it clear that Hillary would do better against McCain? Right now, according to the polls, she does worse.

Her biggest problem is that decades of untruthfulness have caught up with her. 60% of Americans don't think she can be trusted to tell the truth. She has done nothing in this campaign to dispel that notion.

Obama had gotten more votes (even counting Florida - where he didn't campaign - and Michigan - where his name wasn't on the ballot), he has received 164 more elected delegates, he has won more states and now he is only behind Clinton by 23 in the superdelegate count - having picked up 75 on her since February.

Obama has shown tremendous ability as a campaigner, fundraiser, and organizer, overcoming a 20% lead that Clinton had in the polls at the start of the year and now polling around 8% above her, and completely out-organizing her in the caucus states.

Unless Clinton swamps him in the upcoming primaries, the superdelegates really don't have much choice. There is no rationale to support Clinton over Obama, and every reason to end the primary season so our nominee can heal the party and get ready for the general election.

Posted by: Chuck | April 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

After the debate it is clear that Senator Clinton is our best choice. Obama is a lying hypocrite and is unelectable in the general election. At least with Clinton we have a very good chance of beating McCain. She has won the important states and as she said her baggage has been rifled through more then once. Obama can't stand up to the pressure and has proven himself to be a spoiled self centered whiner and I don't call that presidential material. It is time to vote smart and vote Clinton.

Posted by: Tobias | April 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I really don't think this matters anymore. Obama is finished. Check out this first of a series of articles on Obama's membership in the Illinois "pay to play" mafia, by E. Pringle on opednews. He's up to his eyeballs in it.

It appears it won't be long now til the smoking gun is found, or someone rats with a plea bargain, or the circumstantial case against Obama comes on so strong that there will be no question.

He's a hood. He's organized crime. And he's SO over!

April 18, 2008 at 14:06:30

Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games - Part I

by Evelyn Pringle Page 1 of 11 page(s)

http : // www .opednews .com

Posted by: John Ryskamp | April 18, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

With Hi-liar-ry's unethical past, her lying history and her slash and burn tactics during this campaign, she is doing one hell of a job to make McCain the next president. I will certainly give him my vote if she is the nominee.

Posted by: tydicea | April 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Debra: Great point. I have a doctorate degree in law, and my own business. If I were choosing between Hillary and Obama for a position with my firm, it would be Hillary, hands down. Now to be honest, that's because we do not do any litigation. If we did, then maybe a BSer like Obama would be useful. But with his penchant for deception, I'd have to watch him like a hawk.

Posted by: Fred | April 18, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The only one presenting a new start is Clinton. Obama is just a young version of the same old, same old. Out for his own good and not anyone elses. It proves out in his church affiliations and even in the choice of words he chooses Ge generalizes instead of embraces the diversity of people. He isolates people if they have different views. My husband and I are both college graduates and we earn about 80,000.00 per year together. I absolutely look at someones experience when I hire them and would never hire someone with only one year experience for this kind of job no matter how good they can promote themselves. I have heard too many people tell me they can do a job and they didn't have a clue. Obama need to get more experience before he tryes to lead the country. My vote is for Clinton all the way. Only she knows policy front and back. Only she is completely motivated to prove herself and what she can do.

Posted by: Debra | April 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Hillary's campaign lobby to have the Florida primary not counted before they lobbied to have it counted? The ONLY reason they changed their minds is patheticaly obvious.

Posted by: mitchs | April 18, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is great at delivering prepared speeches with the use of a teleprompter, having studied Jeremiah Wright's mesmerizing techniques from the pews for 20 years. But he is halting, tentative, and weak when delivering impromptu remarks or answering debate questions. Obama loves to lecture white people on what is wrong with American society in his left-wing socialist agenda-Black Liberation Theology-opinion. His campaign is devoid any particular policy. "We are the 'hope".. of the future," sayeth the silver-tongued Obama."We can remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country with -"Hope" "Change" & "Words."

04/14/08-JERUSALEM -Hamas has expressed "hope" Sen. Barack Obama will win the presidential elections and "change" America's foreign policy. "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip said., "I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he's a friend of the Israelis."

#2."If you look at Barack Obama's [diverse] audiences and look at the effect of his "words," those people are being transformed from what they were," "This young man is the "hope" of the entire world that America will "change" and be made better."said Louis Farrakhan.

#3. 07/22/07 - Hamas Manifesto reprinted on Rev. Wright's church's newsletter that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance Compares charter, calling for murder of Jews, to the Declaration of Independence.

#4..Sen. Obama enjoys a friendly relationship with terrorists Bill Ayers & wife, Bernadine Dohrn.
In 1969, first condemned the United States for its pervasive racism, then formally declaring war against what the Weathermen called"AmeriKKKa" Rev.Wright would understand.

The same old America-hating Left. 04/11/08
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The "theology" that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it. The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called "black liberation theology." Wright admits this and it is stated on the church's website. Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed. This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white. This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of "theology." Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple of James Cone's quotes: (1) "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." (2) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism." (3) "All white men are responsible for white oppression." (4) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." (5) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it." (6) "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." *** These statements, and this "theology," are fundamentally racist and divisive. The fact that Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years speaks volumes about his character and judgment, and flies in the face of his pronouncements about his ability and intent to "unite" this country.

Posted by: Fred | April 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

If Obama couldn't handle the last debate very well (which he didn't), how is he going to fend off the Republican slime machine. He needs to fess up and tell the truth about the issues like Hillary did last night. When asked about the Bosnia incident, she admitted that she exaggerated, and apologized. When asked about his knowledge of Rev. Wright's views, Obama continues to lie and expect us to believe that he had no idea his "mentor and spiritual adviser" had those views. One would have to be a moron to believe that, after his 20 year close relationship with Wright. He also lied about the flag pin issue (which, by the way, I think is a non-issue), when he stated that he had never said he wouldn't wear one. I immediately went to YouTube and found his statement that he wouldn't wear one in about 2 minutes. He also lied about the issue of his stance on gun control as stated in the questionnaire he filled out in his run for state senate. If Obama doesn't want to have many more tense moments like he had last night, he needs to be honest with the American public; he needs to admit that he is very much like politicians in general. For those who doubt this, here is an article from the Chicago Tribune about how Obama obtained his first elective office. Read this article, and then decide for yourself if he represents "change."

Posted by: Fred | April 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the Country of Doom

Obama spells doom for this country. Not only because of his dubious affiliations with mob members like Rezko and criminals like Auchi, but because of his lack of experience and bias education especially his bizarre religious affiliations. He is like silly putty; able to change his ideas for the public as needed so as to achieve his goal as supreme leader.

His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo "Roy" Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama's military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and "Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel," or Obama's super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama's most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.

And besides all this questionable laundry in Obama's life, another serious question is why is Obama protected and promoted by the media? Is this also being directed from behind the scenes? The American public has been fooled before and I guess those in power know we can be fooled again. (Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the invasion of Iraq...).

The fact that Obama has made it this far demonstrates the collective lack of discriminative intelligence and education of this country. And nothing demonstrates this better than how well Obama plays his black card; which plays on our fear of being labeled a racist.

Posted by: Marian Williams | April 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Every time new scandals come out about Obama (e.g. Rev. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, etc.), or he gets caught lying about important issues (e.g. NAFTA, his supposed continual opposition to Iraq, or his playing of the race card), the media tells us that his poll numbers go up. Well, I have a great idea for Obama. Based upon this phenomenon, if he wants to really clinch the nomination right now, maybe he should just torture an animal on television, or knock off a liquor store; that should send his poll numbers sky high.

Posted by: Fred | April 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

As an under 35 white male, with some college, making under $50,000 in Southern Indiana I'm more than happy to say my choice is Obama. I've been eligible to vote for a tad over 10 years now, but this is the first time I've been presented a candidate that I feel I can vote for. Do I agree with everything he says? Of course not. You simply won't find that in Politics, but I believe that even his experiences growing up are enough of a change from the status quo to warrant him being President. Obama '08!

Posted by: Nick S. | April 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The super delegates had better remember that Obama won in a lot of states that hold Caucuses. Caucuses are not representative of all the voters in those states. Older people and people that must vote by absentee ballot were not represented. Democrates that might not go to a caucus but would vote in the general election. Does he really have the full support of those states? And I am not sure if we can even win the General election against McCain given the fact that we have alienated Florida and Michigan. Dean should be booted out of the DNC. He has been trying to manipulate the results from the beginning and now we have a real mess. If Florida and Michigan had been counted and Clinton had been able to focus on the coming clections properly- would Obama be ahead as much? The Obama camp and even Obama himself is fine with not counting the votes in Florida and Michigan. He doesn't care that millions of Democrats will not have their votes counted. Is that the kind of President Americans want? It is not ok to step on the members of the Democratic party! That is not the kind of Democratic party that I want to belong to. I hope the Super delegates think about this when they decide who they want to vote for. Someone who believes that all voices should be heard....or someone who does all he can to silence those who don't agree with him. This one thing is so telling about Obama and everyone else ever elected to an office. They need to reject Obama on the grounds that he tryed to manipulate the vote. Clinton supported letting everyone vote. Isn't that the kind of person we want as president? I do.

Posted by: Debra | April 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I have steadily grown tired of Senator Obama and everytime I see him act angry over relevant questions I realize he is all wrong for the country. He's not going to be our pal, he's going to be president. If he wants cool, he needs to find a new profession. I have spent months reading and listening and have realized, we still do not know this man. We know he can deliver a speech and we know he has questionable relationships....that's a concern.

Posted by: kevin | April 18, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

There are elders, even white women, like me who wanted to see a woman president BUT one with integrity and inspiration. NO doubt about it, Sen. Clinton is a workhorse and she knows her policy arguments. But she's been more and more "bought" through the years, first after the failing of the health care program, happy insurers and pharmaceutical firms donated large amounts. Then to get herself elected in NY. And now to get herself elected president.

Those little and big donors to Obama are buying something else right now. And the superdelegates are awestruck. The Midas touch is immediacy, brilliance, values, kinship, a less tarnished relationship with truth (whoever's perfect throw a stone now) and the capacity to inspire and to lead. Not to mention to manage, to organize, and to get results with a minimum of swaggering power and a maximum of thoughtfulness.

Soon, soon, we will know.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was my choice back in February, but her low class antics to put Obama down helped me to see him in the big picture, I am a black woman who sat under the same pastor for forty years and he is gay which totally goes against the bible,but my rational is that he has to pay for his own sins and when I had questions about his messages, they were always open for discussions I've even heard him preach messages like Rev. wright's controversial sermon, and understood where he was coming from, ii did not make him un america, it was just a gosper preacher who left no stones un turned. Hillary started this controversal becaus she knew that there are a lot of lying small minded people that need something to go subtle racist on Senator Obama. But remember no matter what the color of his skin, he is the product of a white woman who taught him well. Rev Wright is an intelligent praying loving man and he and Obama are going to make it through and I Love Obama for being a stand up kind of Guy The americans who are trying to use these two against each other are sick and they were sick before Obama was born.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

One area of the debate that Hillary continuously referred to was her husband's record. Now, if Bill is running that would be fine. But, what it seems to imply is that either she was responsible for any success he enjoyed as president, or that he will be running the office behind the scenes. It is time for a change.

Posted by: BB | April 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton's slender hopes for winning the Democratic presidential nomination rest on her ability to persuade the party's superdelegates that she is now more electable than Barack Obama."

Dan, not true. According to the Clinton campaign it is the remaining voters in the next ten contests who need their votes counted. Wink wink.

Posted by: Matt | April 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

After that skewed debate, I now know how Julius Caesar must have felt on that March 15th.I knew that Hillary was a Republican. She is attacking in all fronts.Michigan, Florida, superdelegates, popular vote, I'm better than you are, this is the last chance to vote for a woman, you name it she's got it. It's her White House. It is HILLARY WHO HAS BEEN WHINING... before every primary she either starts crying or complaining about the Saturday Night Live thing. She just gets away with it. Obama wasn't complaining. He just wasn't ready for an ambush by George ( can't get enough of those great Clinton years ) Stephanopoules.and Sean Hannity. If you look at the questions that were designed to totally convince that audience that Obama is unpatriotic, you would clearly see Hillary fanning herself. If someone had told him that he would be facing 3 Republicans, he would have been better prepared for the sniper fire.

Posted by: Ron | April 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The younger voters have always been underrepresented in the poll of "likely" voters since the historical turnout of this group has been low. It is hard to tell if pollsters have made adjustment for the latest polls but my suspecion is that this group is still underrepresented in the poll. If Obama is the Democratic norminee, he will be able to increase the turnout of this group and enjoy a comfortable lead in this group to offset McCain's edge with low-income white men.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company