Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton to Obama: "Mr. President"

Did Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) just endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president?

"Mr. President," Clinton said to Obama as she began a speech on what she called the "continuing failure" in Iraq.

OK, OK. She didn't really endorse him in what is almost certain to be the clash of the Democratic titans next year.

It was just one of those only-in-the-Senate moments a Capitol Briefing tipster brought to our attention.

Clinton made her remarks while Obama was presiding over the Senate. For all but the most important debates, the task of presiding is left to the lowest senators on the seniority totem pole, meaning that Obama and the new class of '06 Democrats are now stuck with the somewhat thankless job.

And, when speaking on the floor, every senator addresses the presiding officer as "Mr. President."

Shortly before 6 p.m. ET, Clinton referred to Obama as "Mr. President."

Capitol Briefing's source said Obama was soon relieved from the presiding role after Clinton started speaking. He promptly bolted the chamber, not sticking around to hear her speech.

By Paul Kane  |  February 7, 2007; 6:31 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: No Rest For the Weary... Senators
Next: The Iraq Debate's Winners and Losers

Comments

The NY Senator should get use to addressing the future President in that manner. "They call me Mr. President" will be the headlines in Nov 2008.

Posted by: DMoore | February 8, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

As the only shemale Presidential candidate may I say hello Mr President, Mr Obama Osama, I mean Osama Brack Bin laden, errrr Bama en caso Hussein - ahhh nevermind!!

Posted by: HILLARYisAshemale | February 8, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

A sign of things to come.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

OK, why did you waste our time by creating a misleading headline out of a perfectly routine event?

Posted by: wtf | February 8, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I am very curuous about reporters like you. How is it possible for reporters in general or American reporters in particular to be so obssessed in reporting about some trivial thing or another when lives of over 3000 young people had be already sacrified by the current administration at the altar of colonization of a sovereign third world country and the spineless congress was making an attempt to at least discuss the war? Are reporters at the Post, as a matter of policy, expected to act as unofficial agent/PR for the current administration, unless otherwise provoked,
by covering silly trivia at the expense of news that may actually unmask this administration' killing programs?

Posted by: Rabiti | February 8, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

This is dumb. So when Obama is speaking on the floor, and Clinton is presiding, is it going to be news when he says "Madam President?"

Posted by: youshouldknowbetter | February 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I thought it was funny. Probably wouldn't hurt people to read further, rather than just make assumptions based on catchy headlines. Not the author's responsibility. Also not necessarily this or any journalist's responsibility to cover the war exclusively. Personally, I like to read about other things occasionally, including goofy things like this.

Posted by: whatever | February 8, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

youshouldknowbetter, of course! It gives people jobs to report on such things. If we did not have these people reporting such trivial things, they would be standing in welfare lines, or the jobs would be outsourced to Nigerian 419 scammers and we would be able to make even less sense of the senslessness.

Posted by: Chris | February 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

gotta love this country. Presiding over the most powerful body politic in the world is "thankless" and the goal of the presider is to bolt the room when a fellow member speaks.

Posted by: Alfred E Neuman | February 8, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

What (mis)leading tripe, specifically twisted to imply a false premise. Soon we'll be saying "Obama had the fish for lunch today. Is he insisting that we deplete the world's oceans for his own personal gain? Let's badger Hillary with questions about Obama's lunch until she gets really defensive, and then we can all get on our blogs and call her a b*tch".
Democracy is dead.

Posted by: agree with wtf | February 8, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

GASP! DID Obama have fish for lunch? Enquiring sheep want to know!

Posted by: Chris | February 8, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"Capitol Briefing's source said Obama was soon relieved from the presiding role after Clinton started speaking. He promptly bolted the chamber, not sticking around to hear her speech."

Lesson learned: Obama does not suffer fools gladly, and makes efficient use of his time. Good.

Posted by: Thor | February 8, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"Capitol Briefing's source said Obama was soon relieved from the presiding role after Clinton started speaking. He promptly bolted the chamber, not sticking around to hear her speech."

Lesson learned: Obama does not suffer fools gladly, and makes efficient use of his time. Good.

Posted by: Thor | February 8, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

That was a complete waste of cyberspace. Everyone who has watched CSPAN knows they call the presiding Senator Mr. President.

(yawn)

Posted by: Dummy | February 8, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It has reached the point of stupidity. This article was so silly it was stupid and shows just how useless most writers are in the media. Here is a bulletin for you Obama worshiping, kool-aid drinking, one dimensional thinking white folks. It is only a matter of time before he pisses you off because no way can he be all things to all people that you seem to think he is. Then you will turn on him with a viciousness that will be breathtaking. These are serious times that call for quality and insightful writings save this crap for the water cooler.

BTW, like it or not Madam Senator is the ONLY Democrat running that has withstood the onslaught of the Republican party and won, don't be silly enough to understimate that!!

Posted by: Pamela | February 8, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Front page tabloid fare.

Posted by: Ron | February 8, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"Capitol Briefing's source said Obama was soon relieved from the presiding role after Clinton started speaking. He promptly bolted the chamber, not sticking around to hear her speech."

Right...Is that REALLY the best way Sen. Obama's leaving could have been phrased? This is an example of how NOT to write an article.

Perhaps Obama just had something else to do. Senators are important people. Him "bolting" the room does not in and of itself mean he didn't want to hear Mrs. Clinton speak.

Give. Me. A. Brek.

Posted by: DG | February 8, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

It would be a wonderful things for him to become the next president,concidering there has never been a afro-american president.

Posted by: egypt | February 9, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

hilary 4 president
obama 4 vice president

this will be a powerful combination
and put america back on track

Posted by: al | February 9, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I personally would like back 1 minute of my life(Paul Kane) for reading this "Junk!" As for "HillaryShemale" who posted something sooo unintelligeble, please; for the love of people who actually understand the morphis an pretex of politics; don't post anymore comments.

Posted by: AKI | February 9, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Didn't like my Ted Kennedy intro AKI?

I just saw the video of the event in the Senate. Apparently Hill found a white dress and was starting to sign 'Happy B'day' to Obama while standing over a steam grate, but when a breeze lifted her dress Obama ran like the wind.

Posted by: HILLARYisAshemale | February 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I abandoned reading the "Sleuth" a couple days ago and now I will NEVER read this column again. Im going back to the fix and never looking back. The Washington Post needs to screen their "reporters" more closely if this qualifies as news.

Posted by: Well then... | February 9, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure at ALL what the crieters are for NEWS. Come on POST!!!!!Pass out scrpt time?

Posted by: grb | February 9, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Aat leass she did'nt say ''big boss man ''
which he may very well become

Posted by: donkykemore | February 11, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I wish you had written on the article
by Michael Gordon concerning Iranian arms in Iraq - which had no sources,
or proof.
At least we can back yours up - even if utterly trivial - unlike his which concerns the future lives and deaths of young Americans and Iranians.

Posted by: Neil | February 12, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company