About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Clinton's 'Obligation,' Obama's 'Mother'

Hillary Clinton is airing a new ad, called "Obligation," in Wisconsin. The Badger State votes Feb. 19. The 30-second spot is about health care.

"If you believe health care is America's moral obligation, join her," the announcer says.

Barack Obama is airing his first ads in Ohio and Texas. The Buckeye and Lone Star states vote on March 4. "Mother" is a 30-second spot, also about health care. It has aired in other states.

"For 20 years Washington has talked about health care reform and reformed nothing. I've got a plan to cut costs and cover everyone. But unless we stop the bickering and the lobbyists we will be in the same place twenty years from now."

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  February 12, 2008; 9:15 AM ET Ad Watch , Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Campaign Ad War Comes to D.C. | Next: Clinton Airing New Ads in Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin


Please email us to report offensive comments.

if obAMA get the dem nomination im voting rebublican

Posted by: PAT Yglesias | February 12, 2008 11:14 AM

And If Hillary gets the nod, I am voting republican.
Keep you vote to yourself PAT, we don't care.

Posted by: Alan | February 12, 2008 11:34 AM

"The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process."
-Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson, 1956

OBAMA is using "Universal Health Care" in his ad. Wake up folks--he himself in a debate with Edwards and Senator Clinton admitted it would leave out 15 million people. This guy lies to the public in 'false and misleading advertising' which I thought was illegal in the USA as far as a consumer goes, hence the quote.

Posted by: josephine | February 12, 2008 12:03 PM


You know what you could do with yours..
Go Clinton

Posted by: Joe | February 12, 2008 12:14 PM

you have to wake up,Read his biography, go to his website.try to read details.

she is big liar as been in senate done nothing.
read new york times about million dollars scandal about bill clinton
she been in senate for 35 years, has anything she reformed so far, has anything she stood so far.
she is nothing but misleading ans stuburn.

you will see it in future.
i advice you not to believe her.

Posted by: Nav | February 12, 2008 12:20 PM

Yep - FINING people and garnishing the wages of the working poor if they don't buy Hillary's mandatory health insurance... now THAT's a great idea!!!! "Obligation" is definitely the right word to describe her program!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2008 12:22 PM

Neither Hillary nor Obama are putting forward good plans. The only really worthwhile plan is a true single payer system like Canada has, but no one is willing to stand up to the insurance companies here to make that happen.

I favor Obama's plan over Hillary because his will do less damage. Hillary's would take us farther away from the ability to implement a single payer system later.

Both of their plans only focus on part of the problem, which is covering people, but the other part of the problem is the inefficient inherent in a system with thousands of insurance providers with different rules, forms, etc., and a system that requires employers to provide coverage, etc. It is a tangled nightmare. Compare that to places like Canada where the employers have zero obligation to provide health insurance, you always have health coverage all the time, you don't have to change it when you change jobs, and there is only one single insurance supplier, and thus only one set of forms, etc., and everything is standardized. That's where the real savings comes in and the real convenience, but people in America are irrationally afraid of "socialized medicine", so we just screw ourselves instead.

Posted by: Jeff | February 12, 2008 12:23 PM

I am from Ohio, and I can feel people in my state are warming up to Obama. I think its impossible for Mrs. Clinton to match Obama's appeal at this stage. I am not sure if TV ads will change anything.

Posted by: Greg | February 12, 2008 12:25 PM

I am voting for Mc Cain (hopefully not Huckabee), if Obama wins.. Experience does matter in difficult times.
We dont know much about Obama other than he is a good Orator.

Posted by: DM | February 12, 2008 12:31 PM

Very surprise so many people don't have any basic sense about "insurance". If you think mandatory join health care is wrong, so why you pay Medicare now? Senator Obama propose health care plan sounds great, but to be honest it will easily make all private insurance companies kick all old and sick people to government system, and only will bring down government to huge debt and broke. Actually Edward's is much better, but sad, all just Corporation's candidates can have chance! Well, people go to figure out what is the basic about insurance and then try to understand that and don't be cheated by insurance companies!

Posted by: Bee | February 12, 2008 12:32 PM

Who cares about HRCs experience, when that kind of experience got her to vote this stupid madman Bush into going to war against Iraq.

I would rather have an in-experienced Barack with wisdom instead.

Posted by: Nadeem Shah | February 12, 2008 12:32 PM

Actually in the true essence none of the candidates have Universal Health Care. What Hillary has is mandated Universal Health Insurance. Canada has Universal Health care, everyone puts money into the system and gets equal coverage.
What is important about either plan isn't how they define "Universal Health Care" but how they are going to bring about the change required to lower cost and make the system efficient to enable "universal" and ADEQUATE care.
That being said Obama's approach seems to be the best, based on his leadership skills he will be able to create a consensus between Rep/Dems to pass his plan and without the worry of special interest can broker a deal with the pharmaceutical companies much like Canada has (yes that's why many Americans are buying CDN drugs)for cheaper drugs. Hillary's strong mandatory clause and her over general attack mode operandi will irk Reps and a few moderate Dems, leading to a stalled plan, she will no doubt have redraw her plan to be in line with Obama's if she still has the political clout to do so after losing her initial (actually second) battle.

Posted by: VarsityBlueNYC | February 12, 2008 12:33 PM

Let's talk reality. Obama thinks that people will take responsibility for their own insurance costs, the problem is they cannot afford it. NONSENSE. Plenty of people do not obtain insurance when they are able to afford the premiums. Plenty of people obtain insurance they can afford then some diagnosis or disease process creates outrageously high premiums afterwards and locks them him to absurd monthly premiums (e.g. $800-$1500/mo.) and they cannot seek other insurance because they are under the 'pre-existing condition' clause of the attempted policy coverage and then are denied. Forget about predatory student or mortgage loans--health insurance coverage is the worse.
Continue to believe the crap that Obama is flinging your way and maybe one day when all these increasing conditions such as heart disease, diabetes (which is approaching epidemic proportions among the young) afflict your personal being then you will understand the value of Universal Health Care and experience your own hardship to be covered or limited access to quality health care.
Is society so naive not to understand that we already have socialized medicine ---look at the Prescription Drug Plan that medicare recipients, by law, are supposed to sign up for and if they do not-when they do--they are penalized.
The whole issue her is again that Obama is owned already by the Health Insurance and Prescription Drug companies yet he has the audacity to throw in an ad that he is far Universal Health Care--again "NONSENSE".

Posted by: Rich_Insurance Salesman | February 12, 2008 12:34 PM

If you think Obama nor Hillary have much to offer, wait till you hear what McCain has to offer.

You will love it, if you want 'more of the same'.

Posted by: Nadeem Shah | February 12, 2008 12:34 PM


Posted by: Nadeem Shah | February 12, 2008 12:36 PM


I am not taking side here, but it is impossible for Hillary to be a Senator for 35 years, unless off course she was a Senator at age 25. Please let's stick to the facts.

Posted by: Ann | February 12, 2008 12:38 PM

hey Pat... Hilary is so indebted to special interestes I will MOVE to canada rather than vote. Barack is the classier candidate...I have a vagina is not a campaign slogan!

Posted by: chris | February 12, 2008 12:39 PM

'Universal' should mean that people who cannot pay are still allowed to seek medical care -- it should not be obligatory that everyone should buy into a plan that is too expensive for them -- neither should it be that people are fined for not subscribing to something they do not want -- nor should americans be left to die on the street just because they are poor -- as so many do now...

Posted by: Mme O | February 12, 2008 12:40 PM

for whatever it's worth lets at least be factual in these arguments.
Hillary Clinton has been in the senate since 2001, not for "35 years" as one of the posts above has written.

Posted by: tired | February 12, 2008 12:41 PM

Obama never admitted during the debate that his plan will leave out 15m people. His opponents made that allegation. He said his plan will lower the cost of health care so that every one can afford it. That is his universal health care. He also said that his opponents can only achieve "Universal Health Care" if they are willing to garnish the wages of those who do not want it or cannot afford it. Hillary and Edwards did not say "yes" or "no". I think just as it will be unfair for anyone to assume Hillary will garnish the wages of people to achieve her plan, it is also unfair to say Obama's plan will leave out 15m people uninsured.

Posted by: George | February 12, 2008 12:41 PM

You beat me to the punch while I was typing my post.
But the problem is the system we have now can't be changed overnight, to many problems. Intrinsic problems of efficiency and cost need to tackled and then the process needs to occur gradually.
I think we are definitely on the same page, in realizing that Obama's plan starts on the right steps without causing the damages and aversion to the process of Clinton's.

Posted by: VarsityBlueNYC | February 12, 2008 12:42 PM

p.s if hilary didnt dye her hair NO ONE would vote for her and thats the truth shes a little old and grey but she hides it well.

Posted by: chris | February 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Expereince = crooked polititians + favors to return/ ax to grind with the other party

Bush and Clinton families are only interested in keeping what is theirs in thier families. Day 1 of the Clinton part 2 whitehouse will be when the conservatives open season again. I am tired of all the BS and am ready for a change. Obama is not expereimced, but he is smarter than her in ways that count, like bringing us back together instead of further apart.

Posted by: middle ground | February 12, 2008 12:46 PM

how can anyone support hilary..she doesnt cough or blink without calculating it and she PROBABLY only stayed with Bill so she could become the first woman president. she doesnt care about the country only her own ambitions. ALSO talk about a slap to the face of black people if Obama wins more delegates and then the super delegates give the nomination to Hilary. the social consequences will be immense.

Posted by: chris again | February 12, 2008 12:48 PM

Enough with the paid shills from the Clinton campaign. Politics is the lowest form of human endeavor.

Posted by: Tobias Mathison | February 12, 2008 12:52 PM

what really has obama done in his life so far? has he managed or run anything? a town? a city? a state? a convenience store? where does all that confidence come from such that we suddenly believe he can run a country? if he is so good, i hope he first try to be a mayor of chicago, or a governor of illinois, or something along that line. without any track record, i simply cannot just take his word for it.

Posted by: tony | February 12, 2008 12:53 PM

No self respecting women would vote for Billary after what did to women.

Posted by: Kim | February 12, 2008 12:53 PM

You probably should listen a little closer next time. She did not say she had 35 years in the senate, she said 35 years in public service. Thats the problem with alot of people, they do not listen to these politians.

Posted by: jac | February 12, 2008 12:53 PM

gObama gObama, gO

Posted by: Dave | February 12, 2008 12:55 PM

I would rather vote for Chelsea since she has 28 years of public life.

Posted by: Kim | February 12, 2008 12:56 PM

Everybody calm down. We will get through this process without commiting hari-kari.

Posted by: Randy | February 12, 2008 12:57 PM


I know that Hillary has been in politics for 35 years, but Nav wrote that Hillary has been a Senator for 35 years. I am trying to point out the mistake here. As the saying goes, "Don't shoot the Messenger."

Posted by: Ann | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM

Hilliary and rice would make a nice couple oooooooooooooooops i meant running mate

Posted by: Ray | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM

Geesh--Calculating--Crooked--Ambitious--great words to sling at Hillary if they were solely hers to claim. Does anyone truly believe that powerful people do not make compromises everyday in order to move things forward. Have the people of this Country not had one thought that it is suspicious how when the first woman runs for President at the same time a novice mulatto runs. Get a grip. they could not put a WASP against Hillary--instead they played the race card at it's finest. I know Hillary will win and for people to continually discount her amazes me--she has made changes throughout her career both USA and internationally. What sickens me most about this whole campaign is the indignation of a former first lady and sitting Senator. How may of you out there are receiving benefits for your child born out of wedlock because of the things she has fought for? How may of you out there are receiving benefits for your child born out of wedlock because of the things she has fought for because it is easier to suck the system dry rather than take responsibility for your offspring like the parents of the '50s did. How many of you received $300,000 off on the market price of your home because you knew a corrupt friend? How many of you lost your Senate records like Obama. Paleeeeeze--they all are politicians and if you caught in one of the debates Obama said, 'You're right Hillary none of our hands are clean.' So, if you want think for one second that Hillary is not going to win--keep dreamin'. The republicans will make mince meat out of Obama "the protected virgin."

Posted by: Robert | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM

As Karen Tumulty reported at Time.com...

The Barack Obama campaign takes issue with a couple of points I made in yesterday's story. By e-mail comes this from ever-vigilant Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
I note that in your story that you write our plan isn't universal because it doesn't include a mandate - a suggestion we fundamentally reject. Our plan will cover everyone when fully implemented and, if it doesn't, we'll find ways to make sure it does. On the other hand, having a mandate does not necessarily guarantee coverage.
Here's the issue: The Obama plan, like that of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, contains an employer mandate--a requirement that all but the smallest employers either provide health coverage for their workers, or pay into a fund that would. However, there will be people--say, the self-employed, or those who work for smaller firms--who can afford coverage, and simply choose to go without. Young and healthy people are the classic example. All three plans provide additional incentives to bring them in, largely by making it easier and cheaper to buy coverage.(Obama claims his plan would save the average family $2,500 a year.) However, only Edwards and Clinton would require them by law to buy coverage, much as state law requires you now to buy auto insurance if you have a car.

Burton points out that this "individual mandate" doesn't guarantee that everyone has coverage either, and cites the plan the Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts as the best example:
Well, in Massachusetts, the state has had to exempt 20% of the uninsured because of the cost - which means that 1 in 5 uninsured folks in Massachusetts will still have no health insurance under this plan that includes a mandate. That's why Barack Obama's plan focuses on cutting the costs of health insurance. 47 million Americans lack health insurance not because they don't want health insurance but because they can't afford it.
Here's another instructive example of what mandating insurance can mean for achieving universal coverage - although liability auto insurance is compulsory in 48 states and D.C., 14% of drivers nationwide are still uninsured.
Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin do not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws. Despite this, the estimated percentage of uninsured drivers in the United States increased from 12.7 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2004. The three states with the highest uninsured driver estimates were Mississippi (26 percent), Alabama (25 percent) and California (25 percent), all three of which have mandatory liability insurance.[Insurance Information Institute, July 2007] the link to the study is here.
That is a very good point, and what it suggests is that none of the leading Democratic plans would in and of itself get the country to universal health coverage. In fact, the only plan that would do that is single-payer health care--a government-run plan like Medicare, or the health systems used in Canada and Europe, where everyone is automatically eligible for coverage and their taxes pay for it. Of the Democratic contenders, only Dennis Kucinich supports that idea.

The bottom line: All three of the leading Democratic contenders' plans are both credible and bold. All of them would go a very long way toward assuring health care for the nearly 50 million Americans who now lack coverage. Now that the candidates have put their ideas on the table, the real question is not how airtight a plan is, but how likely it is that the candidate could shepherd it through the minefield of political and economic interests that would stand between having a proposal and passing a law. That, I think, is where the health care debate in the Democratic primary is headed.

Posted by: kat | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM

I glad to see the Clinton lovers beginning to face the reality that she is not the person for the times. She would have been OK in 2004. Now that the country has become discontented with fractious politics, and the spin and mendacity of George W. Bush, they will not accept it from Hillary either.

A vote for McCain is a vote for high war spending and thus no money for health care. I could not vote for Sen. Clinton, because her integrity is no better than her husband's but I could not vote against my own interests by casting a vote for McCain.

Posted by: Ron M | February 12, 2008 1:02 PM

Hillary is a communist, who will take your money and pay for insurance.
What if I want to put MY MONEY in savings and pay my own bills when I need to? She says no, I will force you to buy it. Why not force OBESE AND UNHEALTHY PEOPLE to do the right thing, eat right, exercise, and cost less to society? Then she would have the lefty ACLU after her. What's the difference?
Here in MA a family had an accident while trying to heat themselves with their stove. THEY HAD THE MANDATORY STATE HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!!!!

Posted by: jason | February 12, 2008 1:04 PM

wouldn't menopause effect Hilary's judgment? and to the person who credited Hilary for taking care of girls bastard children born out of wedlock...are you kidding me we want married families in our country not a society full of baby's mommas who don't know who the father is. make people responsible for their actions don't make it easier for them to be irresponsible.

Posted by: chris | February 12, 2008 1:05 PM

If you want 4 more years of Bill in the whitehouse jokes - vote Hillary

Posted by: Ed | February 12, 2008 1:12 PM

A repost for Tony (switching the name Obama for Clinton and some editing). For those of you reading this, look at Tony's post above.
what really has Hillary done in her life so far? has she managed or run anything? a town? a city? a state? a convenience store? where do all these 35 years of experience come from such that we suddenly believe she can run a country? if she is so good, i hope she first try to be a mayor of Little Rock, or a governor of Arkansas, or something along that line (something small where someone lost their pet would make the evening news) without any track record (other than pillow talk with the husband who was never there), i simply cannot just take her word for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2008 1:14 PM

Pat Yglesias and Alan - you both need to chill... this whole "If X loses, I am voting Republican" stuff is so harmful - and if you were really in any way moved by the policy positions and ideas of ANY of the democratic candidates, how could you possibly make such a blind declaration like that?

Posted by: Salty1 | February 12, 2008 1:22 PM

Chris--This is what I said-"How may of you out there are receiving benefits for your child born out of wedlock because of the things she has fought for? How may of you out there are receiving benefits for your child born out of wedlock because of the things she has fought for because it is easier to suck the system dry rather than take responsibility for your offspring like the parents of the '50s did." Perhaps I am the only one reading between my own lines. Universal care will hold all responsible. I also believe in a reformation of the health care system--Everyone calls it 'socialized medicine'. What the heck do you folks think we have now. Have you ever heard of an HMO--.MMA--Medicaid--PDP, etc.. Give me a break--unless there is a standard for all --it is still the same Rx, Ins. Co. mess we have now. Do you realize that only recently Chiropractors are covered in some plans. We have the most archaic health insurance system compared to the scientific date supporting Holistic Health--again regardless of people not taking responsibility at this time and receiving benefits--it is going to take mandates for responsibility to occur--like it or not.

Posted by: Robert | February 12, 2008 1:28 PM

Hope is a easy sell...
I find it hard to believe that many will vote for a black President, yet won't sit next to a black person on the bus...

Posted by: Allen Yeager | February 12, 2008 1:29 PM

In 2006, our Governer, Deval Patrick, ran and won a campaign with a theme similar to Obama - "the politics of aspiration." As of today, he hasn't been able to accomplish anything. The only thing Patrick can "boast" about is getting three casinos for Massachusetts to increase revenue for the state.

On last Super Tuesday, Massachusetts responded. We want someone with experience and someone who understands and can work the system. Hillary Clinton beat Obama by 15 points, even with Obama's endorsements by Deval Patrick, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy.

For those folks who are wooed by the notion of change and hope, please be warned.

Posted by: Unhappy in Massachusetts | February 12, 2008 1:33 PM

the true issue isn't if the candidates can give the American people universal health care, it is if the American people are willing to pay for universal health care. EU, Canada and a few other countries have universal health care, they also pay higher taxes and have an obligatory sense of helping one other out.

American people DO NOT want to pay for other peoples health care and that is the truth, they don't want to pay for public services, and we continue to pay for 300-400 billion dollars a year for a war the American people supposedly don't want to be in.

until the American mentality changes our 9000+ nuclear war heads are much more important than our health. don't look at the candidates to have all the right answers, they are doing the best with what they have to work with. until Americans stop this mentality of permanent tax cuts, we will continue growing a deficit our children and grandchildren will be paying off. the American people are basically taxing their children.

the new American slogan, "tax children"!

Posted by: vcastro - CA (D) | February 12, 2008 1:34 PM

I am tired of being lied to, tired of The Clintons. Good-bye, Hillary. Please take Bill with you. Thanks.

Posted by: Emily Dolke | February 12, 2008 1:38 PM

did anyone see when obama didnt put his hand on the chest to the flag

Posted by: ffff | February 12, 2008 1:43 PM

If I have a vagina for a campaign slogan, how about I have a ----- penis.

Posted by: mabelle | February 12, 2008 1:45 PM

Nobody has anything to offer. We are doomed

Posted by: Guest | February 12, 2008 1:47 PM

Ok, Hillary's new ad is exactly why i have such animosity toward her.

Hillary's ad basically says she wants to give everyone healthcare.

if they don't get it at work.


Posted by: jds | February 12, 2008 1:47 PM

Obama has lobbyist out there having fundraiser for his campaign
he has taken monies since 1998
it in the state records

Posted by: maggie | February 12, 2008 1:52 PM

The Democrats have blown their chance of taking the White House. Both these jokers have destroyed any chance of being elected. I wish we had a choice that was mainstream. They are chasing such a small portion of the population that the rest of us are left out. It does not matter who wins they will lose.

Posted by: Larry | February 12, 2008 1:53 PM

I can understand to a certain degree the cynicism around Barack Obama's inexperience relative to the other candidates. However, it is interesting to note that one of the greatest presidents of our time had only one undistinguished term in the house of representatives and two failed senate runs - the rest of his experience was practicing law. That president? Abraham Lincoln. His leadership was what our country needed then - and leadership is what our country needs now.

Posted by: CVC | February 12, 2008 1:53 PM

The choices aren't great on either side. But the facts are that the next president, regardless of who is chosen, is unlikely to get much done because the U.S. has borrowed from the rest of the world to finance a "war on terror" which doesn't exist (to the tune of $2 trillion according to a study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes). This estimate takes into account the long-term healthcare costs for the 16,000 U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq so far.

Who is paying for this? Well, right now China is financing most of it, but the American taxpayer will need to pay it -- with interest -- before too long. The next president will have his or her hands tied by the lack of money, a ballooning baby boom becoming eligible for Social Security and Medicare, and the fact that we no longer educate enough people to keep our economy going. Without Indian and Chinese immigrants to work as engineers, we'll have our day of reckoning soon.

Posted by: Sam | February 12, 2008 1:55 PM

Check this out-http://facts.hillaryhub.com/


Posted by: eric | February 12, 2008 1:55 PM

Yeppers--comparing Abe Lincoln with the Obama is relevant to the year 2008--Get a grip!!!!!


Posted by: judith | February 12, 2008 1:56 PM

Follow the Obama hype and then ~~~~~~~~~ DRINK THE KOOLAID.....

Posted by: Irene | February 12, 2008 1:57 PM

Both Democratic candidates are highly intellectual people, but they each have something different to offer. Sen. Clinton has more experience in public affairs and has the former President, who did a good job getting the US out of deficit, as her personal advisor if in case she needs assistance with presidential matters. Sen. Obama, with his personal experience on life's true struggles and achievements, may have a more universal perspective while making tough presidential decisions to ensure that the people at the bottom succeed and don't get left behind. In my opinion, both candidates are qualified to be the next President. More so than any of the Republican candidates. McCain, with his lack of knowledge of the US economy and his stance on keeping the troops in Iraq for an unknown period, is not the right choice for president. Huckabee, on the other hand, just seems like to much of a pushover to be President.

Posted by: christy | February 12, 2008 2:01 PM

The only democart in this primary that I will vote for is HRC. I agree with posters who say he is too young too inexperienced. Mc Cain will crush him. I am a life long Democrat and I feel like his campaign has been smoke and mirrors. The press has not covered HRC campaign fairly. I also beleive that Independents who have no intention of voting Democrat in the general election are voting in the Democratic Primaries against HRC and not for Obama. The dems are in for a rough time if Obama yes we can wins this nomination. Hopefully the House and Senate won't go as well. My guess is it won;t because people will split there vote. I know I sure will.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2008 2:01 PM

Unhappy in Mass: why is Patrick more relevant than Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, or Dave Heineman in NE, or Kathleen Sebelious in KS? Because he's black? Is this a "Jesse in 88" type of comment? Doofus...

Posted by: bubba | February 12, 2008 2:06 PM

Folks, I understand the bickering over candidates of America's most historic campaign, AND PENDING PRESIDENCY, however, I sincerely hope you are not super-over-micro-analyzing the blips on either candidates records...surely they are minor in comparison to the "ultra-spotless" conservative record of our current Commander-in-Chief, or shall I say "Dictator in Charge"! Neither of these candidates has made you a guilty victim of starting an illegal invastion and war, said "up-yours" to the UN, unleashed illegal wire-tapping, issued enemy-combatant labels on everyday citizens, holding them w/o benefit of counsel or trial, targeted a new race/culture on which to practice racial profiling w/no or weak legal tools to combat these practices, restricted or repealed your Constitutional freedoms, and the mother of all meniacal, Monarchial actions...signed the Patriot Act into LAW in the name of the threat against our National Security from Iran & Iraq only, and certainly not from other countries or our own "Decider-in-Chief's administration! WMD's, Katrina, Obscene Fear tactics from a best-friend shootin' VP, the rise in expression of racial hatred (nooses in 'o\07, what?!) and outburst w/no outcry from this admin...apparantly according to the CONdi's own example, as long as an immediate apology follows a "slip-up" all is well. This is dismal if not regressive behavior from this admin despite the obvious swelling desire for unity by the nation to heal from painful past afflictions. Other reminders: billions spent on "his" war while nation-wide schools are crumbling, students failing, 40+ million people in the "greatest country on earth" are w/o healthcare, home-foreclosure scandal, most horrendous big-government spending in history, from surplus to a trillion dollar Deficit; and to top it all off, he leaves us w/his recession. Realize under a McCain presidency the Re-public-ans will only to continue to re-public-ize you, yes, you, you non-straight, non-married w/or w/o children, non-educated, non-rich, non-health care affording, non-conservative-christian (whatever that means today), non-european ancestored self. This is the attitude of some of the most wealthy, well-educated people in the country. Whatever Hill and Barack are, they are certainly NOT going to ruin the future any more than the ruined present what we've got now! Barack would be a great choice-certainly would bring about healing many divides we so desperately need healing from-racial, generation, etc...; and so would Hillary-imagine a well-educated, competent, capable woman finally breaking the ultimate glass ceiling! Other less civilized or industrialised countries have or have had female leaders. It's shameful and ridiculous that thought is being so resisted in America in this day and age of some of the most supposed enlighted people on the planet! Just think, Educational Reform, Universal Healthcare, Civil Rights/Freedoms restored, International Respect, End of the War in Iran/q-albeit a cautious w/drawal. All that and we still won't have paradise! Hallelujah!...just vote!

Posted by: d.b.r. | February 12, 2008 2:08 PM

Ultimately, if either democratic candidate wins the primaries, they will also win the presidency. America is more than ready for a change. And voting for a Democrat will definitely bring that needed change.

Posted by: christy | February 12, 2008 2:10 PM

All due respect Judith, the comparison to Lincoln is relevant. In fact, I would suggest that the leadership required to navigate our nation through civil war is on par with what anything we are facing today. The comparison is directly related to experience as an indicator of qualification to lead the country.

Your tone and hysteria is exactly what we don't need right now. Perhaps you are the one needing to get a grip?

Posted by: CVC | February 12, 2008 2:10 PM

If Obama gets the nomination, I am voting for McCain.

Posted by: Chadwick | February 12, 2008 2:15 PM

to d.b.r. above....that was so well put.

Posted by: christy | February 12, 2008 2:15 PM

Experience, huh?.....Claiming experience in federal politics is admitting that you are a puppet for corporate interests, because that is all politics are nowadays, republican or democrat. Obama no having "experience" is his greatest asset. How can there be any significant change if we keep electing the same politicians? What America needs is a constant inflow of NEW ideas from NEW candidates that can bring an outsider's perspective into the good 'ole boys game that is known as Washington D.C.

Posted by: Zach | February 12, 2008 2:17 PM

CVC--Ditto on with all due respect--It is not relevant. The comparison of a neophyte with the issues of his time are not valid. The United States Civil War on our soil and the mores of that time are not the same as the disarray around the globe... The mass communication we have available today is outrageously bigger than any word-of-mouth. What concerns me the most with all the he is like, Abe Lincoln, JFK, MLK, RFK is two fold: (1) It sounds like the guy is Sybil incarnated and (2) Every one of them were assassinated. What a coincidence that so many of your "He is like..." were so loathed to the point of assassination. I worry that as a collective consciousness all of this is not somewhat suggestive. So again, get a grip--He stands on his own as a fraudulent poser of a presidential nominee. His gift is activism not presidency. As far as being termed 'eloquent speaker'. Listen carefully--eloquence does not prey on emotionalism and subliminal hate inciting and at the same time spewing, "United we stand". I would vote for McCain before I would vote for this covert racist. Again, my comment is not to disrespect you.

Posted by: Judith | February 12, 2008 2:22 PM

Ann, said " Hilary is so indebted to special interests I will MOVE to Canada rather than vote."

What do you really want to say? Do you know that Canadian economy is much much stronger currently than of America, in fact if not because of your recession news all over the world, we would have been the best in the world by now the way our economy is thriving. Do you also know that Canada is a place where every Canadian and immigrants have full medical coverage by the Canadian Government regardless who you are or your income.In Canada we don't worry if we get sick we know our Government will take care of us. I suggest you Americans instead of looking down Canada and the rest of the world open your eyes and learn about others , that will give you an idea how to solve your problems.
Tigi from Canada

Posted by: Tigi | February 12, 2008 2:24 PM

I agree with Zach! We don't need experience. We need change! And Obama is the ONLY candidate who can bring about that change. The definition of insanity is "repeating the same process over and over again and expecting different results." American needs someone to lead this nation in a new direction and he is the only one that can do it. OBAMA 08!!!!

Posted by: Linda | February 12, 2008 2:27 PM

William Jennings Bryan, an attorney,politician from Illinois, He ran for President 3 times. He lost every time because people could separate the difference. Obama is exactly like Bryan! People liked to hear him talk the talk but the people of the time without undue influence of the media knew he would be a terrible President.
We are faced with a serious decision. We need Hillary Clinton now more than anybody in the last century. The Democrats have to appeal to all people. She has garnered respect from many nations.
Hope the cult- rock mania stops and they wake up and turn off their TV and think of our country and all people first.
I will proudly vote for our Country and Hillary R. Clinton.

Posted by: Martha | February 12, 2008 2:30 PM

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 12, 2008 2:31 PM

For all the people who say "we don't know anything about [the candidate I'm not voting for]" - you are either lying or have no one to blame for this but yourself.

Both candidates have been quite specific about their plans. Both offer detailed policy positions on their websites. We are awash in information. I don't find either candidate to be particularly detailed in stump speeches and I find both to be very detailed in the particulars.

If you don't know of a candidates position on your pet issue at this point it is because you don't care or don't pay attention.

Posted by: Bill | February 12, 2008 2:35 PM

Hillary's health plan is 'universal' because she'll get your wages attached if you don't pay for it! Look what's happening in Massachusetts under the MassHealth system. Everyone seems to have fogotton how the Clintons went out in disgrace with Bill's presidency-how he was almost impeached...How anyone can believe anything said by a Clinton or trust them is beyond me. Go Obama!

Posted by: Louise | February 12, 2008 2:42 PM

Last Democratic I voted for was JFK. I don't see anybody compared to Obama. I believe, "We can change!"

Posted by: Denis | February 12, 2008 2:43 PM

Obama for change, Clinton for nothing, and McCain for the same. It clear who we need. Obama.

Posted by: Patrick | February 12, 2008 2:48 PM

Experience means nothing. Bill Clinton was elected President, when he previously had no "real" experience. I don't believe being Governor of Arkansas qualifies you necessarily to be President or is a good signifier of experience. Hillary is a corporate slave, and her record shows it. Obama is the entity Washington needs to transform our country.

Posted by: Patrick | February 12, 2008 2:54 PM

I do not understand the "if this, then that" scare tactic when it comes to voting if one does not get ones candidate on the bill.

So two questions: Can you still write-in a candidate for presidential elections? What is the most important act -- exercising your responsibility as a citizen and vote or staying home?

Posted by: P.A.L. | February 12, 2008 2:57 PM


Please act like an adult. My premise for highlighting Deval Patrick was not because he is Black. I called attention to Governor Patrick because he too won the hearts and minds of many in Massachusetts with his campaign about aspiration and hope during his campaign for Governorship in Massachusetts. Like Obama, he lacked experience, but the people voted for him. Now, we are stuck with a Governor who promised a lot, but cannot deliver.

I am not sure what Bobby Jindal, Dave Heinerman, or Kathleen Sebelious have to do with this argument. If you want to use the similarity of being Black as the basis of your argurment, well Jindal is Asian-American, Dave Heinerman is White, and Kathleen Sebelius is White as well. So what's your point?

Posted by: Unhappy in Massachusetts | February 12, 2008 2:58 PM

The profound difference between the plans of Clinton and Obama is the difference between choice and mandate. Obama believes that many people desire insurance but can't afford it.

He has never said that he'd settle for anyone being shut out who wants to be included.

Posted by: Brian | February 12, 2008 3:00 PM

I have read the candidates statements. Obama and Hillary are for civil unions. Both are for stronger border control. Obama is for granting amensty to illegal immigrants. He is for revamping a few big cities with a Harlem project. Is the taxpayer the one who pays for the projects and as far as civil unions go..I am not for same sex unions (civil). I find the thought disgusting and do not what my children and grandchildren thinking it is okay.

So far the majority of their ideas will bring about bigger government and is that really what America needs?????? Is that the CHANGE that America needs? Please wake up!

Both candidates have some good points but please look at the ideas for every American not just a few when you cast your ballots.

Remember a few years ago when Bill Clinton was in office...... we weren't in Iraq, we weren't in an economic dilema, yet people seem to enjoy bad mouthing Hilary. Is it just because she is a WOMAN.

When the presidential election comes...I hope to be informed about each candidate and hope that other voters will do the same.

Posted by: al2new | February 12, 2008 3:00 PM

Don't get me started on John, excuse me Juan McAmnesty...The democrat who wants to beat the real democrats. This guy does not stand a chance against Obama. HRC will beat him too. She knows how to campaign. If she survives Obama, I hope she becomes more humble, and this time she will go to work.
I think she will be a great president so long Bill stays put (no intern no Kazakhstan deal type).
Barack better surround himself with experimented people with the right judgment. I think he has the judgment to select the right people.
Why are we fighting. These 2 will be great!!
No Juan McAmnesty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sophie | February 12, 2008 3:01 PM

Obama, brain is damaged form what I don't know! He thinks he can make peace with Karl Rove and his likes, he is crazy. Look at the bodies left behind the republican meat machine; John McCain, Gore, Carter, Kerry just to name a few and the 200,000 vets! Ask Obama his game plan on restoring the Justice Department's job of protecting the citizens not corporation gods and RED CHINESE!

Posted by: Jim | February 12, 2008 3:03 PM

Yes we were not in Iraq but keep in mind the following:
In the 90s a whole new set of industries were born: proliferation of PCs, dot com business, major technological innovations. These were done by ordinary citizen not congress or the executive branch. To Bill's credit he did not mess it up as Bush is stopped stem cell research.
However we WERE ATTACKED 3 TIMES AND BILL DID NOTHING. World trade center parking bombing, USS bombing, the embassies. In light of these, Al Qaeda went for the big one. Make no mistake 9/11 WAS ON CLINTON'S WATCH. The terrorists were already here during Clinton's time and the plan was already in motion.
For all the Clinton's good years, NATIONAL SECURITY is always forgotten.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2008 3:09 PM

People who said they will vote for MacCain if Obama wins democratic nomination which he will, think twice. What did the republican's give to this country in the last 8 yrs ? War, debt, destruction in Iraq for nothing.... are you ready to bear this for another 4 yrs if MacCain comes ? What have the republicans done in regards to our domestic issues ? Nothing...

Bill Clinton made fun of the white house when we handed him the responsibility to lead this country. His wife was by his side through the whole scandal. How can you now trust Hillary to run the country when she was not able to run a small family ? Her first job was as a housewife. She wasn't good at running her house, how can she run the country.

Posted by: FS | February 12, 2008 3:13 PM

Do Americans want to pay big bucks to have everybody's health care covered? Let's face it - so far we were not willing to pay for it. Insurances and HMOs had to pay huge money to their CEOs, so they had to deny justified claims to us. How do we change these facts? HRC tried to force her plan in 93, but nothing changed. Her way was not success, despite her good intentions. Are Americans now more trusting in government capability to spend our money wisely? That's hard to believe. We have more debts than ever, and a costly war going on. So why should HRC now be successful with her plan? Did she offer specifics of how she would finance her plan, and how she would make it happen through legislature? Did she explain in precise terms why she actually failed to accomplish it the first time? Just promising something that was impossible for her to deliver last time, does not look so great to me. Between 1993 and 2000 she didn't even try to do what she is overpromising now. -- In contrast -- Offering at first universal coverage to all kids seems like a good proposal, this is a good first step from Obama.
In this race, HRC retracted her commitments on Florida primary, on Nevada caucasus sites, on debating on FOX news, and on driver licences for illegal imigrants. Is there a pattern here? How hard will it be for her to change her health care overpromise?

Posted by: Irene | February 12, 2008 3:17 PM

Can you say SOCIALISM

Posted by: RichieRich | February 12, 2008 3:36 PM

Well, Clinton already have try here Medical
Health program. And what? Have we seen it?
Clinton is not "Iron lady". She is just wife of former president. I have hear here, and what? She try get direction of wind, not presenting any new own ideas.
Also, if she is not a former first lady, it just an ordinary lady.
I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican.
I'm always looking for freedom of choice.

Posted by: Greg | February 12, 2008 3:39 PM

Yeah,..let the Federal Government run our health care...They're so good at managing our money. I can't wait 'til Uncle Sugar starts deciding who is or isn't eligble to receive certain procedures based on life style choices ( diet, drinking, etc)citizens make. Sign me up!!

Posted by: RichieRich | February 12, 2008 3:47 PM

A redistribution of wealth...Hmm. What FAILED form of government uses that in their playbook?

Posted by: RichieRich | February 12, 2008 3:55 PM

Well,..back to work. Someone has to pay the bills.

Posted by: RichieRich | February 12, 2008 3:57 PM


Posted by: JIM | February 12, 2008 4:02 PM

WOW, the hatred vicious words towards Hillary have almost taken my breath away. Here is what I say to you haters, "You deserve what you get." Let's see what you get from Obama Hussein.

Posted by: TheHatredAMERICA | February 12, 2008 4:13 PM

I like Hillary and Obama !!

Posted by: Castro | February 12, 2008 4:44 PM

Actually, Obama's plan doesn't leave out 15 million people. This is just a common misconception spread by Hillary Clinton to mask her own health care plan from criticism. In reality, Obama's plan is simply not a mandatory one; it gives families a CHOICE whether or not they want health care. Every American will be able to afford his plan, but according to his experts, 15 million people will simply CHOOSE not to buy health care.

Hillary, on the other hand, prefers to mandate coverage whether or not your want it, and she'll garnish your wages if you don't buy a plan. Additionally, millions of Americans won't be able to afford it! How can you possibly consider Hillary's plan the best one?

It's time for people to wake up and smell the coffee. It's time for Barack Obama.

Posted by: Bobby | February 12, 2008 4:55 PM

Go Hillary!! Go Obama!!

Posted by: Putin | February 12, 2008 4:58 PM

The flaw I see in Obama's plan is that it may be subject to minor adverse selection problems, since healthier and higher-income people may be more likely to opt out of the program. But still, unlike what Hillary's plan says, it would be IMmoral to require everyone to spend their money on a plan even if they don't want one! Not to mention mandating coverage would leave more families a lot worse off than they already are!


Posted by: Bobby | February 12, 2008 5:02 PM

Free oil...Free Health Care. Hillary and Obama, call me, OK?

Posted by: Chavez | February 12, 2008 5:07 PM

Exactly when did health care become popular? Seems we've been fighting for this a long time, long before Hillary was given the task to set up a health care plan and she failed. I don't think either candidate has a great health care plan (I'm for universal, single payer), but I suspect Obama will have better luck at getting legislation passed because he seems more capable of working with people.

Hillary had her chance.

If you want experience vote McCain, if you want change, vote Obama.

Go Obama!!

Posted by: melissa | February 12, 2008 6:02 PM

Obama is "pimping out" his dead mother for votes. Not a good sign.

Posted by: TDGRL | February 12, 2008 6:41 PM

I am for a Canadian or UK style single payer healthcare system. However, we should not be thinking of add a state-run system in ADDITION to the private insurance scheme. The only way to pay for it is for the money that employers now pay for private insurance being diverted into the state-run system...in the form of a payroll tax. For employers it would be a net zero. For the state, it would be a far smaller net cost than any of the current proposals, and for everyone, they would be
covered with aplan that meets basic helath care needs.
Realistically we will never get there, so who are we kidding. All these proposals are doomed.

Posted by: photty | February 12, 2008 7:25 PM

The only thing that Obama can do..
is to shoot hoop and a better hip-hop.

Posted by: WTA | February 12, 2008 7:52 PM

Being from upstate (central western) New York, I can tell you that Hillary has done NOTHING for upstate NY...it's depressing and terrible, how people who had good jobs and worked hard (at IBM, Kodak, many more small companies) now have no jobs. Air bases have closed, companies have left, families are struggling...and what has Hillary done to make a difference? If she can't do anything to make an economic difference in upstate NY, I sure don't see how she can make the changes she says she can for the entire U.S. No way am I voting for her in November, no matter what!

Posted by: tootaloo | February 13, 2008 7:00 AM

Clinton had her chance to provide health care. She failed, and then she gave up--for seven years!

Why should we believe she can do any better now? The big insurers are her second biggest donors. She's going to fight against them?

Posted by: Clinton had her chance | February 13, 2008 7:58 AM

The health care plans are roughly similar, with the exception of mandates for children only in Obama's plan, vs. mandates for all in Clinton's.

The more important factor will be who is more likely to be able to get a health care plan through Congress. Clinton will be handicapped by her previous efforts, whereas the political momentum behind Obama's efforts will be hard to deny.

This is where the enthusiasm seen so clearly at yesterday's rallies will translate into legislative power. Go Obama!

ul and


If you haven't been able to make it to an Obama rally, or have been to one, you can find the entire Obama rally setlist--from "City of Blinding Lights" to which he takes the stage to "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" --the entire setlist!--on Itunes, here:


Posted by: Cara Prado | February 13, 2008 4:58 PM

We can not keep spending money we don't have.

Obama criticized McCain's stance on the war and said, "We can't keep on spending money that we don't have on a war..."


(AP) Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters.

"This agenda is paid for," Obama said as the Republican National Committee promoted an "Obama Spend-O-Meter" online to track his proposals and portray him as a tax-and-spend liberal. Obama explained that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war...

Posted by: mavismatch | February 13, 2008 8:47 PM

For those of you that can't refrain from using Barack's middle name, or commenting on his heritage, you simply display your bias and your ignorance. In America, composed of so many ethnicities, years of prejudice and blind hatred still exist. It is a shame that even in America we can't ignore appearances and accept people simply for what they, fellow humans. Did you grow up in a family that displayed prejudice? Prejudice also applies to social status. Some who are born into wealth or opted for the "right profession", consider those with less income or living in outright poverty as "beneath" them. Other are prejudiced, harbor envy of the wealthy and complain that it's the "haves against the have-nots". When you were conceived did you have the opportunity of selecting your parents, your sex or sexual orientation, and your birth name? Did you get to snag a silver spoon? Did you grow up believing that you were the superior race because of your skin color? We need to be more tolerant of our differences. We are what we are, it is what it is, so come on, people, let's try to make this world a little more pleasant while we still have a planet. We should be focused on working for a better tomorrow. FYI: I am a 71 year-old white granny who voted for Barack Obama. He is the one who can bring honesty and end partisan fighting in government. Yes, ladies... I am woman, I am strong, and I won't vote for Hillary. it's over for the Corporate Clintons. She is not entitled to get back in the White House to fill any position. Her laundry cart of baggage is simply too dirty.

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 14, 2008 5:57 AM

Bill Clinton is so obsessed with power that he will do anything to be in the white house. It's high time Bill advices his wife to step down and give this up. Her claim of winning in Texas is farfetched. If the Clintons think they are going to win the nomination without the black vote they are dreaming. This is not about race but Hilary is making it a race issue by claiming that she is the hispanic canditate and Obama is not. Obama never said he was the black candidate. African Americans are voting for him overwhelmingly because the Clintons started off with the race game and it turned the African Americans off. Right now they are united than ever before, to give their votes to Obama. This is the kind of dirty politics the Clintons have played in the past. This time around it is not going to work. This is not about tearing people down as Obama rightly says , it is about lifting each other up. I deeply believe in my heart that Barack is genuine and the Clintons are fake.

Posted by: mabeca | February 14, 2008 12:28 PM

I'm still waiting on another crying spell from Hillary. That is so dumb of her. Oh well, that's what she is.

When I saw on the tv news that she promises that Bill will not cause anymore scandals, all I could do was laugh at the dumb broad.

Her & bill are both liars.

Posted by: Sharon | February 14, 2008 3:46 PM

Obama and Clinton have very similar platforms with Hillary stronger on Iraq policy and Obama stronger on the war on the middle class. The record shows Obama to be the stronger legistlator in his few years of service. Hillary polarizes the other side, Obama extends a handshake, and neither has an answer for the free market destroying our manufacturing base. Democrats will attack McCains statement of ignorance concerning the economy. This was planned to set up his veep pick Romney as responsible for economic policy. I expect a nasty trick by Texas Republicans in voting for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. She is in trouble and negative ads just won't work against Barack and Michelle because they're righteous people whom epitomize the American dream of a poor man being successful by studying and working hard. McCain is fighting a losing argument when he said invading Iraq made America safer when the opposite is true. He is right when he calls for military build up, but is dead wrong on Iran being a threat. The capture of Bhuttos killers will probably make Musharraf a winner in Pakistan which is our countries most pressing terrorist threat. Baker and Gates have done a good job with what they have but can't stabilize Iraq and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan quickly with present force levels. Obama spending four years in Indonesia has a level of understanding the Islamic world much greater than the rest. It is unfortunate the ignorant in our country will hold that against him.

Posted by: Jimbo | February 15, 2008 7:18 AM

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." This sounds like a quote from a Democrat, but is a quote from a Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 7:35 AM

Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it.
I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don't know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.

Posted by: Male Enhancement | March 4, 2008 3:59 PM

Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it.
I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don't know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.

Posted by: Male Enhancement | March 4, 2008 4:03 PM

Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It's interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else's point of view... makes you think more.
So please keep up the great work. Greetings.

Posted by: Natural Male Enhancement | March 7, 2008 2:21 AM

hi Skabrewno [url=http://web.skgwu.com/board/8198615.html]Skabrwino[/url] http://web.skgkw.com/board/8198615.html

Posted by: simeksaz | March 23, 2008 3:39 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company