Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Candidate Speeches a Study in Contrasts

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) speaks at the Montana Democratic Party Mansfield-Metcalf Dinner at the Butte Civic Center in Butte, Mont., Saturday, April 5, 2008. (AP)

By Alec MacGillis
BUTTE, Mont. -- Montana is expected to favor Barack Obama when it goes to the polls on June 3, following the lead of other Western states where he has racked up wins. But when Hillary Clinton's turn came to address a state Democratic Party dinner here last night, she did her best to create a bond between herself and Big Sky Country. Her determination to stay in the race -- despite lagging behind Barack Obama in the pledged delegate count and calls for her withdrawal -- was similar, she suggested, to the resilience that Butte has had for the past century, as it fell from its place as one of the wealthiest towns of the West.

"Throughout Butte's history, you never quit. When the silver market crashed at the end of the 1800s, you refused to give up and found copper. When the empty copper mines closed in the 1950s, you found new mining technologies and kept going. Many times the national press and the pundits have said, 'Butte's a goner,' but you said, 'No we aren't,' and your progress today proves you were right," she said. "And I'm awfully happy to be among people who have the spunk, the courage and the determination to stay in the fight to keep fighting for a better tomorrow, who know that we're going to bring that same spirit to this campaign."

Clinton adopted a feisty tone in her speech to the 4,000 or so Montana Democrats gathered in Butte's civic center, a speech that served in stark contrast to the address Obama had given two hours before. This has been apparent throughout the campaign, but it is growing only more evident as the race enters its final stages: The two candidates could hardly be closer on the issues they address, yet they may as well be speaking different languages, so radically divergent have their presentations become. A historian looking back at this remarkable race could do worse than to simply scrutinize an event like last night's, with the two candidates making a relatively rare back-to-back appearance in the same setting, for clues to why the contest has played out as it has.

Obama entered to a roar and launched his speech with princely ease, smiling broadly through jokes about his newfound determination to learn fly-fishing and rookie Montana Sen. Jon Tester's flattop haircut. Obama proceeded to give more or less a standard stump speech, tailored for a partisan audience with attacks on President Bush and Sen. John McCain, but overlaid with the usual Obama patina of universality: "For too long, too many in Washington have been either out of touch, or out for their own survival. They cling to the policies of the past, or a tired politics that values scoring points against your opponents over solving problems for the people ... a politics that exploits our differences, instead of focusing on the hopes and values we share as a nation."

He read from a teleprompter, stumbling over words at times but still managing to bring the crowd to its feet again and again. He had his litany of policy proposals, but they were framed as a catechism rather than a laundry list. "We believe that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street is struggling. We know that when there is a child in Bismarck who cannot read or a young woman in Boston who cannot afford college, we are all poorer as a nation," he said.

Some of the guests, and some of the energy, had gone out of the room by the time Clinton arrived, but she, too, got a big hand at her entrance, and delivered her own opening quips. Tonally, though, her speech shared much more with those of the Montana senators and other elected officials who addressed the convention than with her rival candidate: It was a streak of partisan points, a drive through all the various issues on which Bush had failed America and on which she would repair the damage. She gave her speech without a teleprompter, glancing down occasionally at notes and only occasionally forgetting a word or stressing the wrong one. She gripped the sides of the podium, and, for emphasis, thrust her arms out in a vise, as if to grab the Republican opposition and shake some sense into it.

Targeting the local audience, she added to her very long catalog of policy fixes a call for more spending on Native American health services and a demand that President Bush sign the new farm bill, which has been derided as wasteful by many on both sides of the aisle but is popular in the Plains states.

The Obama-leaning crowd was less captivated by her speech, with a more dutiful feel to its clapping. But helping carry Clinton through were partisans who rose to their feet at almost every applause line, waving their placards. They included Stacey Craig, a 41-year-old homemaker from Colstrip, who said after the speech that she was slightly perplexed by Obama's clear edge in the hall.

"I just think she's a great leader, a great woman, and can do for this country what needs to be done," she said. She liked Obama fine, and said his speech had given her goosebumps. "As long as there's a Democrat that can win, I'll be happy," she said. "But because she's a woman, she's the one I'm going for so far."

Craig's friend, who was cheering as loudly for Clinton, said she also enjoyed Obama's speech, but thought Clinton's was no worse. "We knew he was going to be good, but she impressed me, too," she said. "She's just as good."

She declined to give her name, she said, because her husband would not allow it.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 6, 2008; 6:41 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Muses About the Hair-Prep Gap
Next: Penn Out as Clinton's Top Strategist


I was fortunate to be in attendance at the dinner in Butte. I sat about 50 feet for the stage. From my vantage point Clinton received a greater ovation, there were more Clinton signs and there were more people in attendance when she spoke. Yes there was a contrast between the two. His speech was quotable quotes, her's was substance, his was patrinizing her's was sincere, she knew how many uninsured people live in Montana, he thought the capital of Montana is Bismarck, for those of you that do not know it is Helena. I could go on.
Two people at the same function with very different views on the evening, one a reported one just a voter. May be it is the reporters responsibility to report the facts not their view point. Too many reporters have been doing that in this election. Maybe we should let the voter decide how they view things and not tell them how to view things.
Our Governor, is a very smart man and very popular in our state and when asked how he as a super delegate would vote he said "This is a decision Jag and I will make together," Schweitzer said, referring to his beloved dog. "I'm waiting and he's still sniffing." We might all be better voters if we did a bit more of our own "sniffing" instead of being swayed by how the press sees things!

Posted by: Daisy | April 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

You might be an IDIOT!
-- if you mistake the mindless rants in most of these posts for rational discourse . . .
You might be an IDIOT!
-- if you end up voting for John McCain just because your dem favorite doesn't win the nomination
You might be an IDIOT!
-- if you don't quickly recognize that your divisive sniping and partisan screechings will wreck the chances of the dems retaking the White House in November

Grow up and grow a brain . . .

Posted by: jfbdma | April 7, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Barry is always good for a sermon, but who is the real Obama? His minions are pumped on speeches, but have seen little to show that Obama can really deliver - not a whit of executive experience to sink their teeth into. Like a flashy slot on a casino floor, Barry beckons the foolish to "Take A Chance On Me."
Hyped on "Change", the madding crowd will not hear that bad to worse is change and Carter is more likely than "Camelot."

Posted by: TruthandConsequence | April 7, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian: "Where is Obama getting his $$$$$? It certainly is not from the students! Is it from the black community? Is the $$$$$ from the Oil Companies who are making super profits for their shareholders? Is the $$$$$ from the Insurance Companies who still owe the Katrina victims big dollars? Is it from the War Mongers like Haliburton who are making $$$$$ from the Iraq war? Is it from the companies who GW has given a free ride to and who have failed to uphold the environmental laws? Is the $$$$$ from the Pharmaceutical companies who are making out like bandits with the new provisions to Medicare D? Is the $$$$$ coming from the Health Insurance companies who do not want any changes to their huge profits?"

Nope. He's getting that money from me. And at least 1.3 million Americans like me. And he'll be getting even more from me in the weeks to come. :-)

Posted by: whatmeregister | April 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama's claim of "good judgment" because of his opinion on the Iraq war made to an anti-war rally is not as powerful as it is made out to be. His claim of "always" being against the war is also not entirely true.

First, he formed an "opinion" on whether a foreign country is a threat to the U.S. or not without having the facts to analyze and consider. He admitted to this in 2004, when he stated that he did not know how he would have voted in 2002, because he was not privy to the intelligence reports. This admission puts the lie to the word "always", because if he always opposed the war, he could have said I was always against the war, so I would have voted "NO".

Mr. Obama also tends to use the word "always" to convey total conviction on issues, such as a recent statement that he "always" stated that he would remove troops from Iraq in a responsible way to ensure their safety. His first pronoumcement was that he would move the troops to Pakistan and Afghanistan, which was made without any reference to consulting with Pakistan and Afghanistan first, which cause concern to be expressed by the Pakistani leader--this was not "good judgment"; nor, as he admitted was it good judgment to have the type of relationship with Mr. Rezko. The issue with Pastor Wright, was not one involving race, but Mr. Obama's initial denial of knowledge of the statements and then his admitting that he had heard other statements that bothered him, coupled with renaining in the Church together with his two young children, does not appear to indicate "good judgment".

Posted by: CalP | April 7, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else hear Hillary say that you could close the curtains and vote for anyone you wanted to,(of course)" if you don't like the way they look you don't have to vote for them" I can't believe she will get away with that. Also John McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Graham, on the board of Bear Stearns, remember his wife was on the board of Enron.And people think this is the kind of experience we need at the top. Remember the Keating Five.

Posted by: Bomnana | April 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Jack Smith. I was pretty neutral until I read your post. I'm now firmly with Obama. Sometimes less is more !!!

Posted by: Jimbo | April 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Ummm, cantabrigian, he's getting his money from people like me -- every month or so I go online and click a button to donate $25 or $50 (depending on the nastiness of the attack that month). He's got over 1.5 million individual donors like me -- and the media has been all over this story, mainly marvelling at his fundraising abilities. I think you're confused about the candidate relying on big donors ... big donors that think they can order the Speaker of the House around; big donors that include Norman Hsu, convicted for election fraud for collectin $850,000 for Mrs. Clinton. Lol ...

Posted by: omyobama | April 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Where is Obama getting his $$$$$? It certainly is not from the students! Is it from the black community? Is the $$$$$ from the Oil Companies who are making super profits for their shareholders? Is the $$$$$ from the Insurance Companies who still owe the Katrina victims big dollars? Is it from the War Mongers like Haliburton who are making $$$$$ from the Iraq war? Is it from the companies who GW has given a free ride to and who have failed to uphold the environmental laws? Is the $$$$$ from the Pharmaceutical companies who are making out like bandits with the new provisions to Medicare D? Is the $$$$$ coming from the Health Insurance companies who do not want any changes to their huge profits? Someone does not want Senator Hillary Clinton in the White House . . . it is time to FOLLOW the $$$$$. Where is the media?

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 7, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

To "Be an idiot" There is no one person winning the presidency who knows all there is to know to make it a one man(or woman) show. A good manager surrounds themselves with the best and the brightest. If you need an example of good managing look at Obama's campaign in itself. Look at the infighting in Hillary's campaign. How much experience die Clinton or Bush have at the time of inaugeration? Don't be an idiot and vote to have both Clintons in the Whitehouse at one time. A dual presidency would be disasterous.

Posted by: cglong9458 | April 7, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The media has given Obama a pass on virtually every issue - and Obama's LIES.

Obama LIED about his own father!! - by creating a false narrative about his father's connection to the Kennedy family.

But Obamedia has not aired the numerous videos of Obama lying about his father - easily exposed by WaPo last Sunday with tons of available documentation.

But hey - LYING is Obama's "new politics" - whatever it took to win the Kennedy endorsement.

Obama LIED about Wright.
Obama LIED about Rezko.

The media sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is literally old-school. I know that sounds like a compliment, but it's not.

Sure, she's tough, that's nice, McCain is tougher.

Sure, she has experience, McCain has more.

She's also the exact kind of politician that is the problem in Washington, and having a uterus doesn't make that not true.

She lies constantly, consistantly, and with absolutely no regard for what the overall effect may be. She's too focussed on trying to fix her campaign to even see the outside world.

She's a laughing stock in Bosnia, and the rest of Europe. Yep, that one went global.

She cost Canadian taxpayers over $300,000 in investigative committees with her lie about Obama's winking at NAFTA. The committees that found thet SHE, not he was the one doing it.

She's ruined U.S. credibility in Columbia by treating their government like an ugly date, and trying to shove them into a closet when they became an embarrassment to her campaign. The embarrassment, another NAFTA, this time with Columbia.

And here's the latest from the New York Post by Dick Morris

April 5, 2008 -- QUESTION: Is it appropriate for the spouse of a US senator and a presi dential candidate to be in business with the leader of a foreign country?

A foreign country that has lots of matters before the US government?

Answer: No.

Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns from 2000-2006 reveal that he made at least $8 million from foreign sources and another $15 million from Yucaipa, which is owned by supermarket magnate and "Friend of Bill" Ron Burkle.

It's been reported that Yucaipa manages the financial portfolio of Dubai's ruler - Emir Mohammad bin Rashed al-Maktoum.

So how much of Bill's earnings came from Burkle really come from the Emir's petrodollars?

And what does Bill bring to Yucaipa? A rolodex of contacts made while he was president, and nothing else.

By the way, this is the same Emir who aggressively boycotts Israel and has been cited for human rights violations by the State Department.

How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.

The returns released yesterday also reveal another outfit paid substantial sums to Bill - InfoUSA, a mailing-list company that was under investigation for providing lists of vulnerable senior citizens to telemarketers.

InfoUSA sold these con men lists like "Elderly with Alzheimer's" and "Gullible seniors" so they could be fleeced out of their life savings.

A lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders, founder and "Friend of Bill" Vin Gupta used corporate jets to whisk the Clintons around the globe for events, including political events, since 2001 - spending nearly $900,000 to do it.

The suit suggests Gupta used company funds to party with high-profile pals such as the Clintons.

Again, it's not clear what Bill did for this company.

Hillary has called for more transparency in foreign government-funded sovereign wealth funds and for full disclosure of their activities.

Let that start at home.

Posted by: poeticthevail | April 7, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

er, i wouldn't spend too much time trying to convince any "hillary" fans here.

fact is, they're not really hillary fans, nor, for that matter, democrats.

they're neocons....they want war, and they're afraid of obama.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 7, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Jack smith====Well, I guess there's just more of us Obama idiots than there are of you fine intelligaent Clinton liars, and 1.3 million of us giving donations. Now if you're serious about who's getting the big money from the fatcats, you go to google and type in and then you do a site search for the candidate and then do demographics. This will tell you that it is Clinton that has the big money people in her camp, even more than the Republicans. In all categories it will show you that Obama is the man of the people more than any of the others.Don't be afraid to learn something. Knowledge won't kill you.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 7, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Thank you kevinlarmee. Just what all the folks need.

With the pleasantries passed, let me state that as Americans, the decision should be about who is the best candidate for the presidency at the end. Records speak for themselves (That's why they're recorded). Hill and Bill have issues.
1. Untrustworthy
2. Greedy
3. On the payroll and in the pockets
4. McCain is a better choice, but Obama is the best.
Don't vote for someone because of race or gender! Foolish. It brings a certain degree of bias; prejudice.
What's really important? Just because Hillary's a woman, it makes her NOT a liar? It's been shown over and over again.
Wake up America! Obama for President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Semper Fi!

Posted by: gsun01 | April 6, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse


.......listen to these's worth it...if only to remember who these candidates are, and what they're saying.

Time to get away from the hype & spin, and listen to the candidates themselves.

Forget the pastor, forget Penn, and be reminded once again of who these two canidates are...and what they're saying.

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


if you listen to these comments
(instead of listening to the speeches)


go to:


and link to:

WEB EXCLUSIVE: Watch Obama's Butte speech

WEB EXCLUSIVE: Watch Clinton's Butte speech

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 6, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I just wanted to note, if anyone else is as irritated with the original you might be an idiot post as I (seeing it in EVERY comment column on any political article) please feel free to cut and paste mine to add into the replies in any thread you see the original. Please fix my typos first though as I was in a bit of a rush. Editing, altering or whatever is fine as well, you don't even need to credit me.

Thralen (Tom)

Posted by: Thralen | April 6, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The only idiots I know are the ones who'se blogs are sooooooooooooooooo long without any substance. You know who I'm talking about.

Posted by: mrtutto | April 6, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Note, this is not the "you might be an idiot" posting you are familiar with (as it has been posted thousands of times recently).


If you think Hillary Clinton actually has 35 years of applicable experience, first lady isn't president (no security clearance), wal-mart and rose are not applicable political experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama is going to plan an economy turnaround without the advice and input of some of the greatest economical minds in the country.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Hillary Clinton will get her health care proposals passed any better than she did the first time. Non-negotiable? And this is someone that is supposed to have political experience?

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama's proposals about Afghanistan haven't been implemented since he made them public. You also might be one if you believe (again) that Hillary will somehow manage to have Bill Clinton's experience rub off on her.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama doesn't have a 'green' plan (much like Hillary's) and isn't going to, once again, make a team to implement it as opposed to doing it himself. A team, I might note, with far more experience than Ms. Clinton.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that higher education is currently affordable (re: Bill Clinton maing it so).

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Hillary Clinton gained much experience in critical issues as first lady. As mentioned prior - NO SECURITY CLEARANCE. This means the critical issues were not discussed with her and if they were that is yet another note against the Clinton's occupying the white house again.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Hillary Clinton has any intention of changing the way DC works. After all, she thinks she has mastered it in its present form and does NOT want to lose any power so things would stay the smae old, same old with her at the helm.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Hillary Clinton's win in the Texas primary (we won't go into Obama's greater delegate total for the state) wasn't fueled by a proven 119,000 republicans following Rush's instructions to keep her in the running.

Best regards


p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

If you don't know that the huge donors to Hillary Clinton's campaign have all maxed out and she can't use any more of their funds for the primary and will need to return the general election funds after she loses. You might also be one if you are unaware that she is NOT PAYING small vendors that dealt with her in good faith, the larger ones whose services she may still need in following states have all been paid but wait until she doesn't need their services again and they will get ripped off also. You might be an idiot if you think someone who does this and mismanages money as badly as she does has even a one percent chance of holding together the economy of our nation.

Posted by: Thralen | April 6, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

This is to: "You might be an idiot Jack Smith"

You brought up experience. How many families accross this great land heard from their teenagers who are seeking their first job, "Nobody will hire me without experience mom. How am I supposed to get experience?"

As a principal of a charter school I had to make the choice between an experienced teacher with certification over one with no experience and no certification. Of course I chose the experienced teacher.
I sent the inexperienced one to a fellow colleague who too is a principal. He hired him also.
Moral to be told. I fired mine after 3 months. Experience and certified as he was he was not cutting the mustard. My colleague friend of mine, thanks me to this day for sending him the best innovative,motivated and resourseful teacher he ever has seen.

I will take my chances on inexperience if you want to say that about Barack Obama.

Posted by: dpi2Dan | April 6, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

O Hillary! O Hillary!!
A youtube tribute for Clinton Dynasty:

Posted by: jamila_morsheda | April 6, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse


Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

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

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

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

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

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

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)



Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse


If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards


p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 6, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is, and always has been, Clinton voted for the invasion and subsequent slaughter in Iraq. She would do it again if she thought the vote would be of benefit to herself. She has never apologized to the millions of maimed, bereaved, displaced and murdered human beings- both Iraqi and American.

Posted by: pathina | April 6, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I want to see them both HRC and BHO with a Tester hairdo!

Posted by: thebobbob | April 6, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone in their right mind vote for a person who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? The first thing we teach our children is to always tell the truth, why should we expect less from our presidents? Hillary has mastered her deceptive craft from her legendary liar husband Bill, who made famous the phrase "It depends on the meaning of the word is, is.

Posted by: kzero2 | April 6, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary does her homework.

Posted by: jj394857 | April 6, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

a patina of universality?

yikes!! we might say the same of God Almighty.

her husband won't let her?

the people who tell me they want a woman do squirm and wiggle and waffle when i say sure, me too, but i need truthfulness, vision, somebody to take on the corporations (it's pharmaceuticals now whose profits are looking like exxon) ... it's not a woman this time.

and the commenter who said why choose a president by race or gender is right on. whatever we are, whoever, we are a person first, then we have a gender assignment or a racial assignment and experiences that complement or conflict with those who have another one.

says me

her husband won't let her? poor girl.

Posted by: GaiasChild | April 6, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's grasp of Butte history is shaky -- and so is MacGillis' grasp of Montana place names. "Coal Strip?" It's Colstrip.

Posted by: cjohnson1 | April 6, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Ugggh. How shallow can you be, to vote for somebody because of their race or gender? There's so much more to all the candidates than how they look.

P.S. McCain and Clinton are owned by the corporate lobbyists.

Posted by: scharb | April 6, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company