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

Clinton Hints at Running With Obama

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared on the six broadcast and cable network morning shows Wednesday. On CBS's "The Early Show" Clinton acknowledged that Democrats may eventually nominate a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket.

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket."

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Clinton suggested she'd ask host (and former GOP Congressman) Joe Scarborough to run with her.

Meanwhile, on NBC's "Today Show," Obama lumped Clinton with John McCain, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney.

"The American people are going to want a clear break from the Bush-Cheney policies of the past because they haven't made us more safe. If she thinks that longevity in Washington is the primary qualification for being in the White House, then John McCain is going to beat her."

Obama also appeared on "The Early Show," while Clinton also appeared on "Today." The pair also chatted separately with ABC's Good Morning America, CNN's American Morning, and Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends. All before 8 a.m. Whew.

UPDATE: Speaking with reporters in San Antonio earlier today, Obama said it was "very premature to start talking about a joint ticket."

"I think that going into the convention with more votes, more states, more primaries, more caucuses, more delegates, we're going to be in a pretty strong position," he also said.

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  March 5, 2008; 1:07 PM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Democratic Group Launches Anti-McCain Ad | Next: Weekend Funnies Addendum:Clinton on The Daily Show

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



the media is treating obama with kid gloves is that because he is black

Posted by: john rooney | March 5, 2008 2:24 PM

The Republicans now have their biggest spokeswoman.

Hillary linked arms with McCain on experience.

How smart can you be when you open a can of worms and find you are one of them?

At best Hillary would now have to settle for VP. But Obama doesn't have to settle at all. There are plenty of women he can turn to for that position if he needs to heal the gender wound.

Posted by: Terry | March 5, 2008 2:24 PM

Hillary needs Obama far more than Obama needs Hillary. Hillary's ham-handed dismissals of states that did not support her will bear ill-will toward her campaign. Obama would commit political suicide if he runs with her in any capacity.

Posted by: Mel | March 5, 2008 2:28 PM

Only a Clinton would be down 100 points in pledged delegates and deign to "offer" the VP slot to the leading candidate.
Truly delusional!
As most people have said - she needs Obama TONS more than he needs her. He's going to FINALLY hit back with some negative campaigning now and she's going to look like road kill soon. She blew any chance she had at a joint ticket by her all out nuclear campaign. Sorry hill, time for you to really go now! You are a bane to the future of the democratic party.

Posted by: Anna B | March 5, 2008 2:34 PM

I would not vote for Sen. Obama if he was on a ticket with Hilliary. She is too negative. I would will never again vote for anyone associated with the Clintons.

Posted by: Denice1 | March 5, 2008 2:37 PM

Democrats who really want to win the Presidency, need to chill the hot words about Obama and Clinton. They are campaigning, and are obligated to do what they can to win the nomination. However, we voters demonizing one or other of them is not helpful. In the end, it is about winning back the White House, not scoring flame points on other Democrats...

Posted by: CR | March 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Hillary Pees Standing up

Posted by: Ha | March 5, 2008 2:44 PM

Uh Oh - the Obamanites are sounding a little scared.
For those of you who were born and aware of politics when Bill Clinton was in office, the U.S. was sitting pretty and he did a lot of good. And while people have critized Hillary's experience, in many ways she served as co-president during 1992-2000 - she was the Nurse to the Physician and we know how important nurses are. I believe a lot of Obama's supporters were teenagers at that time, enjoying the prosperity that was happening in our country.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Obama would be committing political suicide because he's burned his bridges.

What is Clinton's main argument against Obama? Lack of experience. Not ready for the office - yet. That can be fixed by a term or two as VP, and Clinton supporters wouldn't be put off by it. I think it's unlikely that Hillary would accept the VP spot on the ticket.

Obama, however, has painted Hillary as the Washington Establishment he's bucking against. He's practically blaming her for single-handedly invading Iraq. He says she has poor judgment, none at all, or is a Republican puppet.

How could Obama choose Hillary as VP and explain it to his support? As a necessary evil?

I can't imagine him accepting the VP slot, though I think it would be a dream ticket. As if he hadn't had enough problems with the "black enough" question, he would alienate many of his supporters who would cry "Uncle Tom!" as well as grumble about the black man taking the subservient role to the white *itch.

I'm sure Barrack's wife would have some problems with that, as well.

I also believe Obama is too high-minded to form a ticket with Hillary, and his campaign to portray Hillary as someone who is bad, rather than just lesser-qualified, shows he lacks political savvy. You need both to succeed in politics, perhaps more weighted towards savvyness.

Posted by: Brewster | March 5, 2008 2:47 PM

For those saying the media is treating Obama with kid gloves because he is black, well, from the perspective of a black man in America, the media is not necessarily the friend of African Americans. You think that because Hillary whines so much. I can see her now, weeping before Congress and stomping her feet because she cant have it her way.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 2:48 PM

Obama will not win in November if he is nominated. It's experience, stupid. The question is: is he going to loss 40 states or 45 states.

Posted by: G.Y. | March 5, 2008 2:51 PM

Obama will not win in November if he is nominated. It's experience, stupid. The question is: is he going to loss 40 states or 45 states.

Do you mean lose? I doubt that, especially considering the turn out. All you old school Dems need to realize that BO is getting the youth vote in droves. If you old Dinosaurs want Hillary in there you are going to p-off all the young voters. Its our time to try something, I mean young people. You had your time in the Clinton years to mess up the country, thanks for that. Let us try to fix it now.

Posted by: HA | March 5, 2008 2:56 PM

Astounding! This woman will truly stop at nothing. By insinuating Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton, she is cunningly trying to mislead and misdirect people, particularly undecided or unsure, into voting for her. I don't understand how any one can not see thru this machiavelian tactics. It truly is worrying and to think that we may have to watch this sort of antics for the next 4 years, please, please, not that! We do need to see something resembling integrity particularly after 8 years of Bush/Cheney. If CLINTONS get nomination, I am seriously considering not voting or even voting for McCain.

Posted by: pelohoki | March 5, 2008 2:57 PM

Another trick of Hillary. She knows there is no way, as long as you can count correctly, that she can get more delegates than Obama.

Now she is fooling people to think that they can vote one and get one free. People may buy into her trick not because the experience argument (in fact, Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary), but because Obama is young and, as the argument goes, he can wait.

The country can not afford to have 4 or 8 more years of divisive Clinton politics. In fact, I do not think Hillary can get there given the dirty tricks she has played and how shallow she is as an candidate.

Posted by: Jen | March 5, 2008 2:59 PM

How about McCain-Obama? And Clinton-Gore.
I wish I were Canadian.

Posted by: Huckster | March 5, 2008 3:00 PM

That Lady on Morning Joe is real piece of work, whoever she is.

Posted by: John Nolan | March 5, 2008 3:01 PM

Ha wrote:
"Do you mean lose? I doubt that, especially considering the turn out. All you old school Dems need to realize that BO is getting the youth vote in droves. If you old Dinosaurs want Hillary in there you are going to p-off all the young voters. Its our time to try something, I mean young people. You had your time in the Clinton years to mess up the country, thanks for that. Let us try to fix it now."

This Ha person is obviously very mature as he/she noted that Hillary pees standing up. These are the people supporting Obama. Are you kidding me? How old are you? Do your parents know that you are using their computer?

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 3:02 PM

Clinton-Obama could sweep the GOP. Hillary could have her well-deserved presidency and Obama could be in-waiting to follow her after gaining more national and international experience.

Posted by: Laura | March 5, 2008 3:02 PM

The Clintons messed up the country? My, you are the youth vote... were you about 12 when Bill left office?

What needs fixing now is 8 years of Bush and Cheney, along with a Republican Congress, screwing up the country. Congrats to Obama for managing to conflate Bush with the Clintons. Voters who were adults during Bill Clinton's terms know better.

Before the youth p-offs the old dinosaurs, they may want to look into the age demographics of the country.

Posted by: Middle-aged dinosaur | March 5, 2008 3:03 PM

Hillary's negative efforts in the last week paid off. How sad that she cannot depend on her positions regarding policies to get her ahead.

My friends and associates are sick and tired of negative campaigns. Just because that's what has always happened in the past is no excuse to continue such untruths, suggestions without evidence, etc. George Bush's campaign against McCain in South Carolina in the Republican Primary and his "swift boat" lies are examples of how you can win by untrue statements. Is that what we want the rest of the world to see and listen to during campaigns? I'm pushing for true statesmen and stateswomen in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Posted by: Martha | March 5, 2008 3:04 PM

Indeed, let's chill. We all have our opinions about Hillary and Barack. We all have our preferences. But here's the real deal (thank you, Sen. Kerry): What we all need most is Democratic control of both the Executive and Legislative branches for the next 8 years, to undo the damage of the horrible Bush years and move the Supreme Court back to something like a balanced center. Even though it's not as much fun, let's stop bashing the Democratic candidates on blogs and start pointing out the differences between the Democratic platform and the Republican. Let's start urging the candidate we support (him or her) to do the same. The Republicans have stumbled around and nominated their most electable candidate. Let's try to do the same - without having that person OR the respected runner-up arrive at the convention with black eyes given to them by fellow Democrats.

Posted by: martimr1 | March 5, 2008 3:04 PM

It looks that the Clintons are hungry for power. They want the white house at any cost. The Clintons don't stand for the Democratic Party; they are helping each other to be presidents. I don't know what is wrong with the American election process if two family are able to run the country for twenty five years (Bush family and Clinton family. Then who is next Chelsea? America wake up.

Clinton will lose against McCain. Since independents don't like Clinton they will vote McCain. Democrats will lose the White House.

Posted by: john | March 5, 2008 3:07 PM

Wow, big night. She barely won more delegates than him. Also, it would be pointless for Obama to choose Clinton as VP.

Posted by: ndk | March 5, 2008 3:08 PM

Haha obama supporters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he spent so much in all those states, yet lost terrrrrrrrrrrrribly.

he has won RED states. he hasn't won a single blue state (other than ILLINOIS) that a democrats NEEDS in order to become president. hillary has won michigan, florida, new york, new jersey, california, ohio, and soon, pensylvannia

Posted by: Jerry | March 5, 2008 3:11 PM

"And while people have critized Hillary's experience, in many ways she served as co-president during 1992-2000 -"

Don't tell Al Gore that. After all, he ultimately lost his bid to become President due to Bill's baggage that he had to carry into the 2000 General Election. You would think with all the *prosperity* and good times that were had by all under Bill that his V.P. for President should have been a sure thing.

The Republicans *hate* Hillary, and personally I am beginning to see why. She has no grace in defeat and even less class in victory. She's gone negative and distorted the facts if not outright telling outright lies about her opponent. She accuses him of plagiarism while stealing McCain's 3 am ad. Like Sen Obama has stated, if experience in Washington is her main claim to fame, then Sen McCain will wipe the floor with her.

Posted by: Absolute O-K | March 5, 2008 3:12 PM

Wow, big night. She barely won more delegates than him. Also, it would be pointless for Obama to choose Clinton as VP.

Apparently people have forgotten how much support Barack received from Clinton when he ran as a junior senator. How fickle the Barack supporters are. I will vote democrat - I am mature enough to know that if my candidate does not move ahead to clinch the nomination, I will continue to vote for my party.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 3:13 PM

Don't tell Al Gore that. After all, he ultimately lost his bid to become President due to Bill's baggage that he had to carry into the 2000 General Election. You would think with all the *prosperity* and good times that were had by all under Bill that his V.P. for President should have been a sure thing.

For those of us who remember, Al Gore got robbed in FL. Something about chad and fuzzy math.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 3:14 PM

Why is it that everyone expected Hillary to drop out if she didn't win in TX & OH, but no one said anything about Barack dropping out when he didn't win--gee, do you think the media is trying to influence public thought in spite of our ability to decide for ourselves....bottom line, Barack is not ready yet, Hillary and John are--Barack still needs to learn a lot and he hasn't shown me what he can do as a senator so why would I want to promote him--this is basically a job interview for the country's CEO and I see a lot of good ideas but I will vote for who can deliver and sorry, I am still leery of the neophyte who wants the big boss's job when he only arrived at the office a year ago--don't tell me what you are going to do, show me and Barack doesn't have anything to show me yet but I don't rule him out for future election years when I have a record I can look at and determine if he will do as he says.....

Posted by: MPreJean | March 5, 2008 3:17 PM

Obama would be a terrible running mate.

You couldn't trust your back. He is the type that would back channeling the republicans or foriegn countries to suit his personal ambition.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 5, 2008 3:18 PM

Hillary has the gall to suggest a Obama-Clinton ticket after she trashed him to win Ohio! Give me a break. You Clinton lovers, you deserve her. What next? Chelsea Clinton for president! She certainly has had 8 years of experience in the white house. Doesn't matter if it is just as a first daughter. After all, you folks can claim she advised Bill on important foreign and domestic policy matters and toured so many nations while bill was president! So let us have 8 years of Billary followed by 8 years of Chbillary! That's what this country needs and deserves! Right? How pathetic! In this great nation of 300 million, we can't find anybody but Bushes and Clintons to rule us!!! If so, we deserve what we get.

Posted by: kant | March 5, 2008 3:21 PM

The voters have spoken and it is now time for Hussein to to withdrawal. It has been fun watching the antics of his frat-boy and girls-gone-wild supporters, but it is now time to take the presidential contest seriously.

That means to focus on the fact that Tony's Rezko's partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in states like Vermont, Iowa, and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Texas and Florida.

The Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Changeable-Hope BS and assorted plagiarisms of Hussein (along with his theft of most of John Edwards ideas) has been a delightful distraction from reality. Now the responsible and mature Democrats must get serious and work to elect a capable president.

Posted by: ALEX H. | March 5, 2008 3:22 PM

Reality. We Dems need to look at numbers. I just saw something amazing. The media portrays Obama as stirring up the masses. Well, IF YOU IGNORE DELEGATES and add up votes from each and every primary held between CLINTON and OBAMA, she has more votes. Hillary is stirring up the masses.

Posted by: mark | March 5, 2008 3:24 PM

There are many fine black people in this country. I want to raise a point on race that is not being talked about AT ALL. How is it that the black vote is voting 91 percent for Obama against a CLINTON? Remember Bill Clinton was "the first black president"?, and they turned their back on her after all they did for african americans. Oprah Winfrey spent 20 years uplifting women in America. How is it that there is an opportunity for a WOMAN to get in office she turns her back on her. How could Bill Clinton, "the first black president", be called a racist? The media in this country is afraid to say whats going on and it's total bull. I was watching Tucker Carlson on MSNBC the other day and a very respectable black senator who is a Superdelegate and he assured Hillary of his vote early on. He said he is being pressured to" if there is a chance for a Black President, how are you going to stand in the way? If a white senator said that he would not be a senator ever again. As I said, there are many fine black people in this country, some of my closest friends are african american. But it seems that the level of racism in this race is high and it is one sided. I was going to vote for Obama but it has become obvious that the unfair treatment of Hillary has been so over the top that it has swayed my vote from Obama To Hillary. I would love another 8 years of "President Clinton

Posted by: Jack | March 5, 2008 3:25 PM

Why would Obama even want to run with Hillary? His future prospects as a U.S. Senator, or perhaps a Governor would be brighter without her and the Clinton baggage that comes with her.

As for the margins of victory, Obama won Vermont with the biggest margin of the night and only lost the Texas primary by 4%. The Texas Caucus has yet to be decided and it will account for 1/3rd of their delegates. Obama didn't lose that much ground last night. Hillary still has a lot of ground to make up and not many opportunities left to do it.

Posted by: Absolute O-K | March 5, 2008 3:25 PM

Hillary is smart enough to figure out her generation's hopes and frustrations and dumb enough to completely miss the point on intellectual currents in generations after the boomers. People younger then her are interested in having a democracy, average hard working women can already get good jobs, if we do the right majors, now we want to have country exchanges which are not dumbed down and inflamatory and unlike evangelical voters we do not wish to be a predictable block of voters.

The glass ceiling for younger women, while it might still exist, is not the most significant factor in womens expected salaries. To some degree the fear of reaching a ceiling affects our early choices, and this fear also exists in our heads. If people take classes that won't lead to good jobs, then they will not get good jobs. If we narrow the sociology-engineering gap between women and men who study at universities, then we will of course also narrow the gap in expected salaries and increase the number of lower, mid-career and upper level women in these fields.

Only after we are actually making an effort to be competitive will we be able to complain effectively about the inequality between salaries for equally qualified jobs. Otherwise it is easy to see that many women expect to be the second income, and following your dream is not the same as being competitive. A degree in psychology is very specialized and useful for financial reasons more if you have a PhD then if you have an undergrad, however most companies need an accountant. They'll hire accountants and economists right out of college.

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 5, 2008 3:27 PM

I agree with martimr1. We each have our preferred candidate. Great. Who are we trying to convince with our blasts against the other candidate? Do we hope to change minds, or just vent? Have you ("you" the reader, not martimrl personally) already voted in your state? If so, why not blog about how this country needs Democratic principles as opposed to Republican ones?

What is important to you for the office of president?

Advancing Democratic policies and principles that will correct what you think are errors and a wrong direction created by the Republicans?

or, a specific individual because you feel a connection with them?

Party, or person?

If you are a Democrat and have been seething at what the Bush years have brought us, will you fail to put your money where your mouth is because you have so much invested in one particular candidate?

Republicans tend to know how to swallow their pride when their guy doesn't get the nomination, and they go on to get their party in power, and that party pushes through legislation and policies that Democrats howl about.

Ending what we've been howling about should be the priority. Not voting for more of it just because our candidate didn't get the party nomination and we feel insulted.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 3:27 PM

An astute commentator on this blog said: "Now she is fooling people to think that they can vote one and get one free." Hey! That's just a re-hash of the first Clinton candidacy. At that time, Hillary was saying 'if you vote for Bill, you get me too.' She's been riding coat-tails for a long time now, thereby garnering herself with experience. (I could be wrong. Maybe she did answer the phone late nights at the White House...for Bill.)

She's the only woman I know who claims experience because her husband had a good job.

America, just say it: "We ain't buying it."

Clinton: Too expensive at any price.

Posted by: Margie | March 5, 2008 3:28 PM

I just realized something most of the Clinton supporters are missing. Does anyone remember the 90's in any other way other than the explosion of this new media called the internet? Bill had NOTHING to do with this and got all of the credit for the economy. Wake up. I don't care who takes office in January. It will be NOTHING like the 90's because we don't have an any promise of any emerging industry.

Posted by: Nate | March 5, 2008 3:30 PM

I'm continously amazed at how gullible the media is...it's a strong signal that the eductational system in america is in vast need of improvement.

How can anyone even entertain the Clinton's position without breaking out in hysterical laughter. She should inquire about a full time writers position for SNL.

The reson the tax returns haven't been released is because their is something there...it's not rocket science. If she get's the nomination and releases them then the dirt doesn't stick it's either her or McCain you pick the lesser of two evils. The media just plays along like her lap dog. It's a sad thing to watch.

This morning she claims she opened borders on Kosovo...really?...prove it.

I would vote for McCain if she somehow comes out on top of the ticket

Posted by: S.B. | March 5, 2008 3:31 PM

To Kathy who wrote:
"Uh Oh - the Obamanites are sounding a little scared.
For those of you who were born and aware of politics when Bill Clinton was in office, the U.S. was sitting pretty and he did a lot of good. And while people have critized Hillary's experience, in many ways she served as co-president during 1992-2000 - she was the Nurse to the Physician and we know how important nurses are. I believe a lot of Obama's supporters were teenagers at that time, enjoying the prosperity that was happening in our country."

We are not "scared". And Bill Clinton is no hero. I was 44 when Clinton ran and I supported him. When he signed NAFTA he ruined all that was going so well, as you noted. But that was not Clinton's work. He came into power just when the dotcom bubble was at its height. The technology was happening, any one who was president would have looked good. But Bill CLinton did not create the technology. He was lucky he was in power at that time and it made him look good.

He did, however, default on all his campaign promises. He promised to support gays in the military and failed to do so. He gave his wife, Hillary, the job of passing heathcare reform, which she failed at.

But his worst legislation was the NAFTA. I saw a clip of young Bill CLinton (about Obama's age then)in 1992, sitting with a bunch of Republicans as they watched him sign that bill into law. It has destroyed not only the American economy but resulted in other tragedies too. So please don't drag out the Clinton legacy. And here is why; the worst of it is the Lewinsky scandal and because the Repuglicans know they can defeat Hillary, Rush Limbaugh is telling his minions to vote for Hillary. Rush knows the Reps cannot beat Obama so he wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. Indeed, Obama has been trying to run a campaign based upon issues, not negative attacks and lies. So do some homework and look at the real facts of history. A vote for Hillary is a vote for McBomb.

Posted by: Susan in PG | March 5, 2008 3:35 PM

Obama and Edwards will run this country for the next eight years. As far as Hillary winning those states last night, it's about time. Obama will BE the NEXT President of United States of America.

Laters
Hook-em Horns

Posted by: Bill from Austin Texas | March 5, 2008 3:35 PM

Is it me or does Obama appear to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter. I am a democrat, so I don't want 12 years of Republican dominance starting in 2012. Sure, he has charisma and eloquence but not a lot behind it except the "i'm an outsider and a free spirit" routine that young people love. Kids feel that way when their in college. Lets face it, 95% of people don't vote on the issues, they vote according to the "which candidate is most like me" test. Obama appeals to college students and Clinton may appeal to older democrats. Just remember that politics is like pop culture, one minute your the biggest thing and the next...

Posted by: Brian | March 5, 2008 3:35 PM

Hey G.Y:
Fortune telling is your profession or just your experience?

Posted by: bas | March 5, 2008 3:36 PM

We are all aware of fact that Clinton has more experience (as elevated as it now is)... and No one is taking that away from her. But if this is all she has got- Democrats you are handing the white house to a Republican.

About Obama- Fight all you can argue the whole night if you must, and analyze as much as you can; He has the "IT" factor- the one no one can buy, none can sell and NO you cant create. YOU ARE SIMPLY BORN WITH. This is why the Republicans fear him winning the democrat Ticket.

If you watch the news closely- you will notice that most of the foreign deals are closed to the Americans- Bush pleading for oil prices to be dropped???? What America needs right now is a Candidate Who can Recreate the American Image!!! It will be tough- But I believe in America and we will get there! We just need the right Candidate- No wonder people are favouring Obama- Please don't call Obama Voters Idiots or Empty or Stupid- They are same people America sends to war to Die for us!

Posted by: Silent Observer | March 5, 2008 3:39 PM

"IF YOU IGNORE DELEGATES and add up votes from each and every primary held between CLINTON and OBAMA, she has more votes."

'Fascinating' Mark.

Go to CNN and make a spreadsheet. Because you're wrong (unless you're including Michigan where he didn't appear on the ballot -- Like the Clinton-biased Media has for weeks)

Kudos,
Reality-based community

Posted by: Miguel Pakalns | March 5, 2008 3:39 PM

Jack, your argument flies in the face of reality. The same argument can be made of gender. White women are one of Hillary's core support groups. Does that make them all racist, or sexist? No.

Early in her campaign Clinton held a lead even among minority women of more than 25 percentage points, according to surveys by Zogby International and The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. She lost a lot of African American support when she and Bill went negative against Obama. It started to happen during the South Carolina primaries. Bill repeatedly injected race into the debate. Deny it all you want to, but it was crystal clear when he went out of his way to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson. The Clintons made a calculated move to concede the African American vote to Obama while appealing to the Latino vote in order to off-set it.

If she is the nominee, she will not be able to beat McCain without the African American vote so be very careful who you call racists. African Americans have been one of the most loyal blocks of Democratic voters.

Posted by: Absolute O-K | March 5, 2008 3:40 PM

This is politics and quite frankly, it is not such a crazy idea.

Keystone State is Key- Barack vs Hillary Internet Analysis:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Posted by: Dave | March 5, 2008 3:40 PM

As a former republican and a current independent, I have decided to vote for the Democratic candidate. However, one thing puzzles me: When Obama assails Clinton for her stand on voting for the Iraq war, why hasn't she come back with a comment like, "Well at least I took a stand. Your record of voting "present" more than 150 times while you were in the Illinois Senate suggests that you haven't been willing to take a chance on being wrong!" Why did the moderators during the last few dual debates never mention HIS voting record?

Posted by: Rick | March 5, 2008 3:41 PM

I admire Hillary so much that despite the mockery and negativity from bloggers and pundits she's seems more appealing and more human. It's time that we stop the hating and support her. We know that she's incredible intelligent and capable to run our country. We don't want an appretice in the White House. I want the real gold not the glitter.

Posted by: Julian | March 5, 2008 3:41 PM

I am taken back by how nasty Obama supports are becoming with Obama losing three states. Why is that? Now,the integrity, change in old politics, and hope is thrown out? Obama looks bad.

Posted by: Elle | March 5, 2008 3:50 PM

You Clinton Dinosaurs disgust me. She has no real noteworthy experience to speak of unless you count scandals. You also seem intent on demonizing Barak supporters to make the case for following HER. It seems that the old and uneducated can have her. The educated and young will take back what belongs to them. We let you speak once...and you gave us Bush

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 3:50 PM

You Clinton Dinosaurs disgust me. She has no real noteworthy experience to speak of unless you count scandals. You also seem intent on demonizing Barak supporters to make the case for following HER. It seems that the old and uneducated can have her. The educated and young will take back what belongs to them. We let you speak once...and you gave us Bush

If you consider 36 years old with a Ph.D. as a dinosaur and uneducated, well that case won't fly with me. Try again...
Oh, and I have never voted for a Bush.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 3:55 PM

If your past post are indicative of your degree and experience...I question those as well along with your common sense for loving the status quo. 36...yeah right

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 3:57 PM

Obama is far too naive to be president. The middle east is imploding, war in two Countries, Russia aiming missles at our allies, faltering economy are all REAL issues. Nuanced talk will not take us out of these situations.

Hillary CAN handle it. If Obama runs, I can only vote for McCain.

Posted by: Independent | March 5, 2008 3:59 PM

on the video with David Gregory of NBC, Obama says (at about 1:20) that he has won twice as many states as Hillary Clinton.

A blatant lie.

By my count he has 14 states - VT, MD, IL, GA, AL, WI, DC, VA, LA, UT, MO, CT, DE, SC, versus Hillary Clinton's 13 - OH, RI, TX, TN, NM, AZ, CA, OK, AR, NY, MA, NJ, NH, -(not counting FL and MI)

Where does he get off spouting such lies? Or is one not supposed to question his statements for fear of being termed a racist?

Posted by: Krishna | March 5, 2008 3:59 PM

Nate - add to that poor oversight which led to .com busts, Enron, Arthur Anderson. The Clinton presidency culminated by putting the US into a recession.

Also, the Democrats are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Too much whining. They wined about the president and the fact they were not able to do anything in Congress. Now they are the majority, and what do we get, more of the same.

Posted by: BT | March 5, 2008 4:00 PM

Well, Senator Clinton, I'm confused. I've done the math. You're 60, which means that 35 years ago you were 25. And I Googled your name, looking for all the change you were making as a 25 year old and, frankly, I'm not finding much. You were going to Yale Law School at the time -- which I'm sure was a personally transformative experience, but it's hardly the kind of change that should count on one's Presidential Training Experience resume, is it? Is that when you started your personal Working-for-Change-O-Meter?


That summer, the summer of 1972, you campaigned in Texas for George McGovern's unsuccessful presidential bid. A worthy -- if ultimately futile -- endeavor to be sure, but a notch on your Years of Change belt? Kind of a stretch, don't you think?

Posted by: chris | March 5, 2008 4:00 PM

Hillary is amazing, she will make a fantastic president.

Posted by: Hillary | March 5, 2008 4:02 PM

If Obama runs on the same ticket as Hilary, he would lose most of the political capital and goodwill he has acquired over the past 12 months. The Clintons and the Democratic Party need Barak more that he needs them at this point. If the Clintons via their negative campaigns and fear mongering win this nomination, they risk alienating the young voters and others who are new to the process and the future of the Democratic Party would be worse off for it. But we all know that the Clintons don't care about the future of the party as long as they get what they want.

This primary process and the contentious campaign of the Clintons would almost certainly cost the democrats a whole generation of party voters. Barak may lose the primary but the Democratic Party would have lost the plot. I for one would not vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination and I know a lot of other democrats would not vote for her either.

I have come to realize how pathetic the American media has become since the Ohio debate. They fell for Hillary's complaint of Barak getting off easy by the media. I just could not believe the intensity with which the media turned 180 degrees since SNL and the debate. The Chris Matthews and the Joe Scarboroghs of the world have just been brutal in their "vetting" of Barak since that debate. I really didn't expect anything less from CNN.

Posted by: ejaylala | March 5, 2008 4:02 PM

If your past post are indicative of your degree and experience...I question those as well along with your common sense for loving the status quo. 36...yeah right

Are you serious? Yes, I am 36 - female, 2 kids, work hard and I have my Ph.D. (have had it for 6 years). Please do not insult me or my common sense/intelligence. You went on about how Clinton supporters are uneducated and old. And now you're insulting my demographic as well. My opinions are just that, but I am not denigrating someone else in the process whereas you are. Not one of my posts said anything demeaning about Barack Obama - not one.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 4:02 PM

The only reason I had to vote for the first time in my life at age 52, was for hope and change. I'll pass again if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket top or bottom. The truth is Obama has not lost any ground. Hillary at best gained maybe 4 delegates by winning 3 states yesterday. So she and her husband will continue the negative b.s. for the sake of greed and power. Better prepare to face the sad reality that Bush gets another 4 yrs. to damage America more than he has already. If dems continue like this the party is finished.

Posted by: Tyler | March 5, 2008 4:03 PM

Wow. Are people really too lazy to just click on one more site to get their facts straight before posting?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

To those who say Obama should drop out after yesterday's losses, check out the delegate count -- he's still got a decent lead in the delegate count. Fact is, Hillary didn't win by enough to put a serious dent in his numbers, and she's still got an uphill battle. OH and TX wins don't tip the scale in her favor, they just keep her afloat.

To 'mark' who encourages Democrats to 'look at the numbers', try actually reading next time. Your claim is only supported if you count Michigan, where Barack wasn't even on the ballot, and several states he won haven't released popular vote tallies yet.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Remember back in high school where your teacher always wanted you to write out that annoying bibliography citing your sources? Give it a shot -- it's *so* much easier now that we have this wonderful internet thing, and it helps keep the flagrant misinformation down to a dull roar.


Posted by: metavosk | March 5, 2008 4:04 PM

What's up here? At about 1:30 of that Obama video he says he won Michigan.

Posted by: kemurph | March 5, 2008 4:04 PM

Questioning Obama does not make you a racist...making racist statements or overtones does. This should not be racial or sexist. That is what is wrong with Hillary supporters now. You cannot deal with substance...you only snipe hoping that something sticks. Young people need to take this country back from this type of crap

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 4:05 PM

I don't want hillary answering the hotline phone at 3 am.


She simply doesn't have the judgement because she voyed for the war without reading the national security estimate that debunked the lies Bushco was peddling and now she won't admit her mistake.

I don't want her touching healthcare because she made such a mess before with heavy handed approaches, and because I don't want the wages of the working poor garneshed by the government in the proposal she's making this time.

I want a president I believe in. I don't believe a single word out of her opaque personna.

If hillary's lawyers steal the nomination from the electorate-chosen delgate leader with backroom deals and arm twisting, I'll vote McCain. At least I know he believes what he says, even if I disagree with it, and even if scum Neo Cons coattail their way in with him like so many roaches.

I'll sleep well knowing hillary ISN'T answering the hotline phone.

Unfortunately I can only quit the Dem party-of-dinasaurs once and I've already done that.

Vote Obama to sweep away the dinasaurs and bigots in DC!

Posted by: JBE | March 5, 2008 4:05 PM

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure--what spouse isn't?--but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq--since shown to be undeniable--required "the willing suspension of disbelief." (What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story, "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down.

Posted by: chris | March 5, 2008 4:07 PM

If Clinton steals this nomination she will have scorched and burned the Democratic parties chances in 'the General'. I will not vote for this coat-tail riding, Iraq war voting, dirty politician. No way - no how..

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 5, 2008 4:07 PM

WM, 44, software engineer, voted for Dukakis, Clinton 2x, Gore, Kerry. ISO presidential candidate with guts, able to take hard hits and come back, able to answer more than 8 questions from the press before running away, not so naive as to believe deeply-held opposing convictions will vanish and parties join in harmony due to charm and charisma. Must be able to fight for their ideas. Willing to take on severe heat and still be quick on their toes without a teleprompter. Long history of advocating and implementing improvements in people's lives is a plus. Must have follow-through. Age, looks not important. Want someone to get things done, not merely say "present".

Hillary 08!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:11 PM

Uh Oh - the Obamanites are sounding a little scared.
For those of you who were born and aware of politics when Bill Clinton was in office, the U.S. was sitting pretty and he did a lot of good. And while people have critized Hillary's experience, in many ways she served as co-president during 1992-2000 - she was the Nurse to the Physician and we know how important nurses are. I believe a lot of Obama's supporters were teenagers at that time, enjoying the prosperity that was happening in our country.

Sound familiar Kathy...but you are so above the frey...give me a freakin break...classic Clinton pity party. BTW I am quoting exit polls that say most Clinton supporters are not college grads...congrats on your degree and supporting your family...think you are the only one?

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 4:12 PM

The bottomline is: Who becomes president? Who will win in November? Republicans? Democrats? Who is the best Democrat who can beat McCain? For Republicans/McCain supporters - they would love to see Barack Obama to be the Democratic Candidate - simply because Barack is easier to beat. Can you imagine a black US President? America is NOT ready to have a black President... that's why McCain will win against Obama.

Posted by: HC-BO | March 5, 2008 4:13 PM

Its nice to see that the candidates have such optimistic "supporters." Why is everybody complaining so much about bulls---? And to think I thought the candidates were acting a bit childish.

Posted by: NH | March 5, 2008 4:14 PM

An Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't happen. One, generally, does not wear clothes after, first, soaking them in the mud!

Posted by: D-of-G | March 5, 2008 4:14 PM

A Clinton-Obama ticket is an excellent idea. Clinton is on the way to the nomination. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to win at the convention without the super delegates. However, us democrats now realize Hillary Clinton is indeed the best man for the job, and most likely to beat McCain. Yes, some Obamanians will be feeling disenfranchised. So he kind of does need to be on the ticket. Clinton-Obama is almost an unbeatable ticket. Go Hillary!

Posted by: Craig in Thailand | March 5, 2008 4:15 PM

the media is treating obama with kid gloves is that because he is black

Posted by: john rooney | March 5, 2008 02:24 PM
*************************************

I will try to refrain from really telling you how terribly ignorant your comment is.

Posted by: luv2laff | March 5, 2008 4:16 PM

Here's a question that everyone seems to be ignoring: why does Hillary Clinton get a pass on the experience question while Barack Obama and John Edwards are portrayed as inexperienced? Here are their respective resumes in public office:

Clinton -- six years in the United States Senate;
Edwards -- six years in the United States Senate;
Obama -- seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate.

There's no question that Clinton was highly involved in politics and policy for most of her adult life. But is her pre-Senate experience as a lawyer and a policy advocate really that much more substantial than Obama's seven years as a state legislator? Implicitly, the Clinton experience argument seems to rest more on the fact that she was inside the White House advising her husband for eight years. But no one's suggesting that other people who advised Clinton are qualified to be president on that basis -- otherwise Rahm Emanuel and Leon Panetta would be throwing their hats in the ring. Sure, she was a closer adviser to her husband than those two, but to my mind, you either have experience being "the decider" or you don't. And Clinton has no executive experience, no experience managing a large bureaucracy, and less experience as an elected representative than Obama. Just because she's famous and has lots of experience in national politics doesn't make her more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her rivals.

Correction 2/11 3:26 PM: Obama has served two years in the Senate, not four.

Posted by: jay | March 5, 2008 4:16 PM

Sound familiar Kathy...but you are so above the frey...give me a freakin break...classic Clinton pity party. BTW I am quoting exit polls that say most Clinton supporters are not college grads...congrats on your degree and supporting your family...think you are the only one?

Absolutely not - I never said that I was the only one. In the DC area, half of everyone is either a lawyer or has a Ph.D. You were making blatant statements and I gave you a contrary view and it's flipped you out so now you are making more ridiculous statements. Why are you here anyway? Shouldn't you be supporting your candidate as opposed to bashing other people and their candidates. I will vote for Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. But, in the meantime my support is with Hillary Clinton. Deal with it.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 4:17 PM

I'd rather see the Democratic party's political house burn down to ground to ashes before I cast my eyes on any ticket involving the Clintons. For me, it is not about party or person, but principles. And the Clintons have shown themselves lacking principles time and again. It is that simple for me, a mid-forties, Saab-driving, urban latte and tea liberal!

Posted by: Mel | March 5, 2008 4:17 PM

HC-BO that is racist. It appears that America is ready for a black president...just not Hillary supporters...like I thought

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 4:17 PM

Correction!
A Clinton-Obama ticket probably won't happen. One, generally, does not wear clothes after, first, soaking them in the mud!

Posted by: D-of-G | March 5, 2008 4:18 PM

If Hillary and Obama keep fighting, it can only benefit McCain. They should stop running against each other and both start campaigning against McCain. Let the ongoing primaries & caucuses & convention make the choice based on who looks best able to take down McCain. Make the remaining campaign for the Dem nomination into two nationwide campaigns against McCain.

Posted by: eldan | March 5, 2008 4:18 PM

hi guys, just think democratic president only,just democrats, may be any clinton-obama,or obama -clinton, right now america needs democrats ,which can save america.(ofcourse GOD will save america.).we have to see that only democrats win-win-win, thats -it.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Posted by: bobby | March 5, 2008 4:19 PM

Huckster wrote: 'How about McCain-Obama? And Clinton-Gore.
I wish I were Canadian.'

Don't waste a wish on that. We have our own problems with our 'Bush-wannabe' prime minister. You know, the one that threw the little wrench in Obama's campaign about NAFTA. With Stevie 'Control-freak' Harper nothing goes public without his say-so. That was an intentional smear to Obama. Right now he is fighting in the house of commons because there is a tape where he is talking about a bribe they were offering to a dying member of parliament to sway his vote (of course he doesn't call it a bribe, more like 'financial help in his time of need'). Trust me, the USA doesn't hold the only patent on nasty politicians.

I tell you what, if you guys don't want Obama, we'll take him.

Posted by: DH | March 5, 2008 4:19 PM

Let me tell you a secret..... Hillary has no real experience!

Posted by: smity | March 5, 2008 4:20 PM

Who cares which one wins. McCain will slauther ether one in general election!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:21 PM

Several comments imply that the good economy during the Clinton years were a direct result of his(her?) economic policies. Hey, I liked Bill Clinton's policies just fine, but get real...the President has little effect on the overall economy (unless you do something drastic like spend $3 trillion on a war while cutting taxes). The prosperity of the 90s had very little to do with the Clintons, and a lot to do with the Internet emerging as a new technology.

Posted by: jakuva | March 5, 2008 4:21 PM

If Hillary's "experience" as Bill's First Lady is so noteworthy (and presidential campaign worthy), then the Clintons should release/provide public access to all of Hillary's documents/letters/emails currently "off limits" in the Clinton Presidential Library.

Posted by: pop | March 5, 2008 4:21 PM

What's McCain going to slather the Democratic candidate with? Butter?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:22 PM

How come nobody picks up on Clinton's years at WalMart? She did such a fine job on caring for the little people there.

Posted by: walmarter | March 5, 2008 4:22 PM

Kathy didn't mean to rattle you...I am here to support my candidate from all the trash that keeps getting talked about him just as you are with HER. I started this contest on the fence with her and Obama. He won me over but she had me until her campaign then her mouth went very negative for just a primary. I do not know what I will do in the general if Obama does not get the nod but for now I would probably do everything in my power to make sure she doesn't

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 4:22 PM

Barack/Hillary/John: Gotta lovem'. Thanks.

Posted by: walterrcrayton@hotmail.com | March 5, 2008 4:23 PM

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the GOP front-runner in national polls, panned Clinton's experience during an interview on Fox News's "Hannity & Colmes" Tuesday night. He said, "Honestly, in most respects, I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never run a city, she's never run a state. She's never run a business ... So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here."

Posted by: topy | March 5, 2008 4:25 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't words like Hope just campaign buzz slogans to get people worked up like mindless lemmings. What are we supposed to be hoping for? Hope is not going to do us any good. We need ACTION!

Posted by: Brian | March 5, 2008 4:25 PM

Young voter - you are a bit full of yourself. Trust me, you did not rattle me. I have two young children - not much can rattle me these days to be perfectly honest. It is a bit hypocritical for you to say that you were turned off because HRC's campaign went negative. Take a look in the mirror because you have been very negative in this blog.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 4:26 PM

If Hill and bama keep fighting, it can only benefit REPUBLICIANS. They should stop running against each other and both start campaigning against McCain. Let the ongoing primaries & caucuses & convention make the choice based on who looks best able to take down McCain. Make the remaining campaign for the DEMOCRATIC nomination into two nationwide campaigns against McCain.
SURELY WE DONT NEED REPUBLICIANS.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:27 PM

This is another one of low-life Hillary scams. She wants people to think there could be a joint ticket so they will be more inclined to vote for her.

NO WAY IN HELL. Obama doesn't need the Clinton stink anywhere near him.

She can con the uneducated racist population of Ohio and get Jewish votes but that's about it. Anyone who has followed world affairs for the last 7 years wouldn't vote for HIllary if they didn't have their allegiance with a foreign nation.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:28 PM

"She can con the uneducated racist population of Ohio and get Jewish votes but that's about it. Anyone who has followed world affairs for the last 7 years wouldn't vote for HIllary if they didn't have their allegiance with a foreign nation."

Another great quote from an Obama supporter.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:30 PM

We are going to get into this "black vs white," "Women vs men." thing and lose this election. Just where do you think this country is going to be after 4 more years of war: An illegal, immoral, unethical war; fought for greed; and pitting the haves against the have nots in this country? 4 more years of the big corporations, sucking every ounce out of you? We are not black or white, women or men; we are democrats who care about making this country proud, and a better place to live. Give it up guys, go with your party program.

Posted by: linda521 | March 5, 2008 4:33 PM

For all the comments that mentioned that appointing Hillary would be a rehash of the Clintons, I'd take a rehash over what we have in a heartbeat...

Rehash the Treasuries coffers and leave the country with a record suplus again.

Rehash the diplomatic and foreign policy expertise that made America loved and respected during the Clinton years.

Rehash the tax levels back to where they were pre-Bush Administration. (Can anyone tell me how you can fund a war, but at the same time cut taxes on the rich and raise expenses on the poor)

Voting for McCain rehashes the last 8 years we are all trying to move away and recover from. Remember how during the early years, McCain would voice his opinions against Bush's policies? Now he advocates everyone of them. Even torture. So a vote for him is by definition a REHASH.

Voting for Obama whether you like it or not is also a REHASH. Why? Obama will be a deer in the woods and will need 20 people to tell him what to do. 20 people to tell him what's going on, and 3 to tell him what happened. He also sounds like Bush with his promise to change and bring democracy, yadda yadda. Truthfully, I have not heard him say anything that gives me an idea of how he plans to execute.

Long story short, if it's a rehash I'd reahash to 94-2000 in a heartbeat. I had more money in my pocket, could afford my food and gas, and I knew my country was loved nearly universally around the world...

Posted by: Just_An_Observer | March 5, 2008 4:36 PM

I am not running for office and I am only as arrogant as you Kathy. I look in the mirror and I see my elders mistakes. Two stupid wars, a wasted surplus, an economy in the tank, and the people who broke it saying I can fix it. Well what the heck was she doing the last 6 years in the Senate while president duh was messing everything up??? Nothing...just like Mccain. Experience like that has ruined our reputation and our economy. Nothing stopped her from doing something in the Senate but her quest for reelection. That Kathy is my problem with her. Now come back with something sensical and stop whining...dag

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 4:36 PM

Republicans know if Hillary is the nominee they can beat her. One doesn't need to look far to come to that conclusion:

*** Buchanan has been defending Hillary for the last 10 days.
*** Scarborough has been defending Hillary for the last 10 days.
*** Cunningham (the nutcase radio personality) endorsed her when McCain rejected his comments.
*** Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners to vote for Hillary.

Why? Because they know they will CRASH her in November if she is the nominee.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:38 PM

Democrats need to support each other and the candidate who wins this race. The Republicans are divided among themselves because the Conservatives think one way...more progressive Republicans think another way...let's not do the same.

I voted for Hillary but if Obama wins this nomination...I will support him! It is about the party! Unite people!!

Posted by: Amy | March 5, 2008 4:38 PM

OK Obama, it is time for you to take off the gloves and remind everyone that the White House needs someone with values in it. Remember, we could never get any agenda going because of all the scandals when the Clintons were in the White House. I would not vote for Obama with Hillary on the ticket. I would vote for McCain. I was always so embarrased to be an American and a Democrat with those Clintons in the White House. This should be about what is best for the country, not the Clintons. Take the gloves off so people can remember.

Posted by: gayle in California | March 5, 2008 4:39 PM

Obama said a long time ago that he would consider including BILL Clinton in his cabinet, but never Hillary. He would need his head examined if he did that. And yet, this may be the price he has to pay to become President, if the superdelegates get their way.

Posted by: bodo | March 5, 2008 4:42 PM

Young voter - you are way off base and clearly you and I are in different places. Let's just leave it at that.

I want to see the democrats succeed in Nov. I don't want to fight with people who I probably fundamentally, in principle, agree with. I don't want McCain in office - I am tired of wars and of high gas and grocery prices and making my dollar stretch so that my children don't notice how stressed I am about paying the bills.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 4:43 PM

I might have voted for Hillary, if she is the nomineee for president, had it not been for the following: 1) Bill Clinton has already been president for two terms, being co-president for another one or two terms violates the spirit of the 22nd amendment,
2) many of her supporters on the internet, blogs, etc. have been very verbally abusive and very offensive in their comments about anyone who opposes Hillary or supports Barack, 3) using the tactics of fearmongering and McCarthyism, "guilt by association," goes way beyond the usual negative tendencies among Democratic candidates. The Clinton camp has lowered itself to the gutter level of conservative Republicans since the late 1940's.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 4:52 PM

You Clinton Dinosaurs disgust me. She has no real noteworthy experience to speak of unless you count scandals. You also seem intent on demonizing Barak supporters to make the case for following HER. It seems that the old and uneducated can have her. The educated and young will take back what belongs to them. We let you speak once...and you gave us Bush

Koreen-you were saying?

Posted by: Deborah | March 5, 2008 4:56 PM

Why vote for a WOMAN! Oh my goodness...how scary!! After all...she is apparently being held responsible for Bill's actions...having an affair and what not. Can you imagine how embarrassing it was for Hillary to have personal issues being exposed by the media?! Why should a woman work to keep her marriage and family together? Oh, and values...everyone loves that word, values. Should Hillary be held accountable for her husband's actions or should she just run to the first $199 divorce attorney? What would the church say? Well, the church would say to work on the marriage.

Addressing the actions of Bill and holding Hillary accountable is ridiculous.

Posted by: A Woman | March 5, 2008 4:58 PM

Koreen-you were saying?
First..not Koreen

Secondly I don't want to fight with fellow democrats either. Your candidate is bringing out the worst in all of us. Please fix this with your candidate. Groceries, gas...heck just the cost of living is hurting most of us. You dinosaurs are my parents so I apologize for disrespecting your generation...just respect mine. We both want to save OUR country. Can we just agree to that.

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 5:01 PM

Hear it Democrats - dividing at a time like this is death to our party! Why all the black-and-white comparisons between two excellent options? The dust has settled at this point - and they are practically tied. -They have such similar answers to huge problems - doesn't a team make sense now? Obama is a great speaker, a motivator, and a proven salesperson. Hillary is a great intellectual, a probem-solver, and a proven politico. If Obama truly wants what is best for this country and for the party - he'd admit that the most qualified gets the job. Hillary deserves the presidency. The President is not a dictator - so why is the idea of Obama as Vice offensive? Nothing is more offensive than a Republican in office for four more years. Clinton/Obama - the time has come.

Posted by: Hill-a-ry | March 5, 2008 5:03 PM

Bush - Clinton - Bush - McCain

Do you get it - If Obama does not win the Democratic Nomination

Democrats lose - Republicans come swarming out to play.

Clinton's negatives are 50% to begin with - Do we want another presidency with 40 something percent of the vote - GRIDLOCK

We need change ... of a special type - not the same old same old

Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2008 5:06 PM

Secondly I don't want to fight with fellow democrats either. Your candidate is bringing out the worst in all of us. Please fix this with your candidate. Groceries, gas...heck just the cost of living is hurting most of us. You dinosaurs are my parents so I apologize for disrespecting your generation...just respect mine. We both want to save OUR country. Can we just agree to that.

Okay, how old are your parents? I am truly curious as you are calling me a dinosaur at 36, so I am a bit confused. Yes, I want to save our country and I am very proud to be American (fyi, both my parents are immigrants so I appreciate that about the U.S. and the opportunities they have had). I have tried to remain positive and continue to state that I will vote for Obama if he wins the democratic nomination. I believe we are "disagreeing" in circles.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 5:06 PM

Posted by: | March 5, 2008 03:14 PM
"For those of us who remember, Al Gore got robbed in FL. Something about chad and fuzzy math."

Yes, yes, yes. I remember. Then there was Ralph Nader siphoning off votes in Florida, but the fact of the matter is that it should not have even been close enough to matter. With his impeachment, Bill's second term was a disaster and the affable G.W. Bush was able to run a campaign on Character issues. Spoken and unspoken.


BTW
Projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and Obama gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

She wants him to be her V.P.????

Posted by: Absolute O-K | March 5, 2008 5:11 PM

Well you put yourself in that dinosaur category so don't blame me. For the record I am 23. What do you want me to say...I support Hillary...well not based on her current actions. Let me see her be civil outside of a debate. Let me see her attack Mccain not raise him up and knock down Obama...then she can have my vote back. Unity takes more than one your side needs to show not say it can do it as well.

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 5:11 PM

Peace out - this dinosaur's gotta get her kids.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 5:13 PM

Or go extinct...Goodnight folks

Posted by: Young Voter | March 5, 2008 5:14 PM

Example of how Hillary's WAR PARTY operates. The good news is they have started LOSING!

"U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) beat a challenger to his House seat who was financed in part by pro-Israel donors.

Kucinich, a two-time failed presidential candidate, was challenged in the Democratic primary by a Cleveland city councilman, Joe Cimperman, who raised $500,000 -- much of it from pro-Israel donors furious with Kucinich for his harsh criticism of Israeli policies in the West Bank and in the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

The Democratic primary challenge was serious enough that Kucinich dropped his perennial quixotic presidential bid in January to campaign for his seat. He ended up raising $689,000 and on Tuesday night appeared to handily defeat Cimperman."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 5:15 PM

It is 3:00 O'Clock ANY DAY - and a decision in made in the White House - Can you imagine the Press was it Hiliary or Bill that made the decision? And on and on and on ...

Can you take 4 years of that foolishness from the media honks?

Partisan politics. Quite frankly the more interesting race among change candidates in McCain and Obama ... Generational - Old versus new.

Are we ready to be side tracked by what Bill is doing or not doing in the White House?

Speaking of good judgment - there are two strikes on the table "What do do with Bill after Monica?" and "the Iraq war and Iran war mongering"

We want change so badly.

Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2008 5:27 PM

Hillary has little more experience than Barack. Let's be honest, neither have much experience in foreign policy or national security. People who think experience, especially in national security issues, are most important should vote for John McCain.
He clearly has more experience than Barack and Hillary combined.

However, I do not intend to vote for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Two of the least "qualified" candidates in our history in terms of significant previous political experience, with a combined national legislative record of a single term in the House, were Lincoln and Eisenhower.

Integrity, being at least reasonably intelligent and well-informed, having sound judgment, being inspirational are also very important. Any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who uses fearmongering and smear tactics has limited integrity. Hillary is a flip flopper on Iraq, she voted for the war, then opposed it when most Americans became opposed to the war and she became a candidate for president. This suggests if support for the war substantially increases, she will flip flop again if the new position helps her win the election.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 5:28 PM

A PhD does not give one foreign policy experiance (unless it is directly related) nor specific government experiance. A college degree doesn't give you specific experiance either but it does tend to have people who network more freely being generally of that age where they wish to signal employability and dateability.

So if we are having a generational conflict who knows who is right or has more inside information? It's hard to tell. All I know is that in general, the DC area voted for Obama. I don't know why individuals voted the way they did and the exit polls are rather crude approximations.

I voted for Obama but that's because I'm facinated with demographics. As the median age in the world is 28 years old, I thought it would be a diplomatic victory to empower young people to reshape world politics. Sure laws, established power bases, and inertia matter (for those realists out there) but so does the ability to inspire new trends.

Obama's rhetoric would give him more of a Martin Luther King Jr role then that of JFK. The power to re-shape political alliances. I want to live in a new era with more choices then just the lesser of two evils. If you get past him using Devel Patrick's speech, you'd notice that it is about words and how much they matter. We are an idealogy based country, so having fluid idealogies to fit the voter aspirations and demographics is more important then partisan victories. It doesn't always matter who said it first, but how many people the message reaches.

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 5, 2008 5:31 PM

If Barak is turning out so many new young voters, how come the percentage of votes under 30 has not changed from last primary/election season (18% of total votes)- the answer is that he has turned out a small number of very devoted people in states where only 30,000 people voted- Nebraska, Idaho, Kansas, S. Dakota; and then he took large amounts of delegates from these states 12:3, etc. The problem with this is that more than 30,000 people live in my neighborhood in Queens. Turning out rich college kids does not win you elections.

And as for you Obamopaths that write mysogynist crap suggesting "peeing standing up", "whining and crying", etc.--really? And you vote??? Get some therapy and resolve your issues with your mom before you do something dangerous like putting a state senator in the most important job on earth.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 5:32 PM

If she were VP, she'd have him killed. Nope, Majority Whip sounds like a better job, or Ambassador to the UN.

Posted by: hell no | March 5, 2008 5:33 PM

As a life long democrat, I read this post and see a lot of hyperbole on both sides.

I hope democrats will remember that all the candidates - democrat and republican have ties to groups that could raise questions. Obama's link to Rezko (Obama either returned or donated to charity any money donated by Rezko) is not any worst than Hillary's with John Burgess and IPA(and she didn't return the $180,000) or John McCain's having lobbyists run his campaign. It's a system that needs fixing.

I am part of the demographic that should support Hillary and I have to admit I hope she is not the Democratic nominee in the fall. I saw her make a mess of health care in the 90's and set that endeavor back for years.

The Clintons together gave us the Republican Senate and House that have ignored the middle class, enabled Bush to appoint Supreme Court justices who will support big business and undermine years of law, ...I could go on and on about the horror of the last years.

All that said, I hope Obama wins the primary - he is not a perfect candidate - no one is. I do think he has the ability to improve American's standing with our allies and with any luck maybe get a Congress that can get bills passed that will help our economic position.

Posted by: sarah in Georgia | March 5, 2008 5:36 PM

Not only is Obama a more fluid independent candidate but he's also smart. He is much more able to adapt on the spot to new information and to think faster on his feet. I like that in a candidate.

As neither of the candidates have the most foreign policy experiance, Hillary claiming experiance because of her social class and Obama working more on domestic issues, then I suggest a good VP candidate like General Wesley Clark. I think an Obama-Clark ticket would be steller!

And no I don't vote on someone who claims bragging rights for being someone's wife. That is insulting to many women who aspire to have their own career and run on their own record. Hillary's legislative experiance is only 6 years in the senate and a botched health care reform that still gives many of my more economical friend's nightmares.

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 5, 2008 5:38 PM

Hillary must be mad. POWER MAD.
Those who are fooled by her dirty, sleazy ways should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of following blindly what she is saying, just do the maths. She HAS LOST. She cannot catch up.

Obama should not choose her as VP. I'm pretty sure he would not.

Posted by: conrad1 | March 5, 2008 5:40 PM

Leon a sentator will win the White House - not sure where you are going with the state senator bit?

WE WANT CHANGE

Ih we get change - WE ALL WIN - this past administration was dismal - and the do nothing Congress has got us all in a funk.

This is not a age, racE or gender issue.

WE NEED CHANGE

The media wonks and the Republicans want this nastiness among Democrats to go on ... a new episode of "There will be blood" Wish we could vote tomorrow. There is no second guessing going on as Clinton will like us believe - It is either the past with McCain or the future with OBama

Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2008 5:44 PM

Yes, the time has come to embrace a ticket with the potential for 16 years of strong Democratic leadership in the white house. Visit http://www.16yearplan.com and sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC.

Posted by: steven | March 5, 2008 5:45 PM

Many of Hillary Clinton's supporters don't seem to understand the political realities of her delegate and popular vote situation. If she can't overcome Obama's 100+ pledged delegate lead and get a majority of the total popular vote in the democratic primaries and caucuses, especially when including Florida, she will have no claim to the nomination. The superdelegates are not going to overturn the results in these elections as it will only doom the democratic presidential candidate as well as endanger their own political reelections in November. In other words, the election is still all but over for the Clintons, it's just a matter of who in the party has the stature to tell them.

Posted by: Matt | March 5, 2008 5:45 PM

To Steven: The sixteen year plan didn't work out too well for Al Gore did it. Bill Clinton really left him hanging out there didn't he. Would you trust a Clinton after that?

Posted by: DH | March 5, 2008 5:54 PM

John McCain will beat Hiliary Clinton in New York, Texas, Ohio and Florida - Do I need to say more - negative Rating 50% - and with this last deparate move to lock experience with McCain against OBama - The negative rating is more like 60% - I hope Howard Dean and the DNC are listening - for an extra 4 delegate after last night - Clinton has done great damage to the chances for the Democrats - LET THE HEALING BEGIN NOW - 7 weeks to PA - I don;t think so - we keep moving the goal posts - This campaining has been going on for 2 years now and 20 debates. Tie the Liberty Bell around the Democrats neck - if we wait for another 7 weeks - and to prove what. The Clinton legacy is Bill - I will vote for his daughter to be the first female president a decade from now. I do believe that Hiliary deserved better - but before the Iraq War - if she had ambitions to be President - Bill would have been finishing off his term by himself.

Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2008 5:55 PM

I guess America is proud considering the uneducated (non-reading)and non-english speaking people are the ones who are picking the leader of the Democratic Party. This is close to the shock I experienced when Bush was elected for a second term. Elected because he said he believed in God, basically (and look what that got us). I am thoroughly convinced that America is falling behind because the masses are extremely ignorant, our educational system has failed us and commonsense is not common. When newscasters can go on TV and say ". . the uneducated (meaning people who look at pictures versus reading), non-English speaking and the dirt poor people want deceiptful Hillary Clinton and the educated, young-middle age progressive people want Obama WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU HILLARY SUPPORTERS? Which category do you fit in as a Hillary supporter? I will vote for McCain. . at least he gives straight talk and not Clintonian lies.

Posted by: Nancy | March 5, 2008 6:01 PM

Oh! Some of you sound soooo much like my two sons when they were young. They already knew everything and wanted to do everything right then. Their parents' experience had no value. Of course, we were all somewhat that way with our own parents. It takes some time living in the real world of working, paying your own way without Mom & Dad's help, raising kids (you learn a lot from that) and gaining knowledge and wisdom, which comes with experience, age and, unfortunately, time.
From reading the above comments, this "dinosaur" finds many to have inaccuracte facts and information - only hype and emotion. Oh well, you too shall grow up some day. Hopefully.

Posted by: Din0usaur | March 5, 2008 6:02 PM

Interesting how that it seems some 'Liberals' on this forum are perfectly OK with promoting the sterotype of the overly emotional female who maybe become too brittle in stressful situations to hold a position of power, but will bristle and scream about bias when confronted with the image of a African-American who will too easily assume the role of victim in order to seek the advantage...

My suggestion is that we as progressives remember that the Progressive movement of the early and Mid-part of the 20th Century began with the acknowldgement of the value of diversity and that we not be tempted to revert to the too-easy fall back position of entitlement that our predecessors struggled so mighlty to overcome.....

Birddog

Posted by: Birddog | March 5, 2008 6:05 PM

Obama might take that offer if Hillary would first shed Bill. The Movement might take being #2 but not #3.

Seriously though, a Clinton, Obama ticket would be the strongest the Democrats could field.

Posted by: Ed | March 5, 2008 6:09 PM

Well - I would have voted for Jeb Bush before George W.

But I was so disappointed in Al Gore and the Democrats for not wnting the presidency sufficiently to put up a better fight for it - GW had is gangs of lawyers and political back room huys fighting all the way to the Supreme Court - and in the end we could not blame it on hanging chads and Naderor even Clinton. The election was laost by Al Gore - he did not even win his own home state Tenessee.

then there was Kerry - on the brink of winning in Ohio - even projected to win - and gracefully or gutlessly bowed out. What a gentleman they both were Gore and Kerry.

I do believe that Clinton (especially Hiliary) would not have given up that easy - BUT THIS TIME AROUND I want a president with 60% of the vote - I long for that or even 55% PLEASE

Posted by: Signing Off | March 5, 2008 6:11 PM

To Din0usaur,

I find your comments insulting to those parents who have being doing exactly what you claim you are doing and still very much resonate Mr. Obama's reformist ideas and strongly believe in his ability and intelligence to bring back America as a respected global leader.

Posted by: conrad1 | March 5, 2008 6:15 PM

This is the MATH THAT COUNTS

Bush - Clinton - Bush = 20 years

That is why the young people of voting age NEED CHANGE

Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2008 6:24 PM

This isn't the 1990's. Hillary isn't Bill, and would't inherit the same world, or the same economy, that he did. Therefore, all of this talk about how great things were when Bill was president is just irrelevant nonsense.

Like many others, I don't want a co-presidency, nor an unconstitutional third term for Bill through the back door.

If Obama is the nominee, he has my vote. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll support McCain.

Posted by: Steve | March 5, 2008 6:29 PM

Democrats who really want to win the Presidency, need to chill the hot words about Obama and Clinton. They are campaigning, and are obligated to do what they can to win the nomination. However, we voters demonizing one or other of them is not helpful. In the end, it is about winning back the White House, not scoring flame points on other Democrats...

--------------------------------

If it means putting the Clintons back in - - I don't want it back, let the Republicans keep.

Posted by: Dee | March 5, 2008 6:30 PM

This is one independent that will break for McCain if HRC appears on the Dem ticket. Obama + anyone else? Count me in.

Posted by: Mike in Hershey | March 5, 2008 6:30 PM

Leon

Obama turned out 26,126 votes in Nebraska while Clinton turned out 12,445. Remember, it was a Caucus. He received 18 delegates to her 8.

Also, anyone can post here. Just because someone posts something hateful about Clinton doesn't make them an Obama supporter, even *if* they are posing as one.

Also, coming out of the Potomac Primaries, Obama was ahead of Hillary Clinton in the total popular vote for the primaries and caucuses. He was ahead even if you factor in Florida, which wasn't contested, and Michigan, where his name wasn't even on the ballot.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 6:30 PM

If Obama is on the ticket, anywhere on the ticket, I will not vote at all. Clinton is a traitor if she picks him for v.p. She needs to stand for something, not back off everytime Obama tries to "fix" the election. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 6:33 PM

How come nobody picks up on Clinton's years at WalMart? She did such a fine job on caring for the little people there.

Posted by: walmarter | March 5, 2008 04:22 PM
---------------------------------------------
How about Michelle's years with Wal-Mart subsidiaries? She quit her $57M post when Barack started bad-mouthing Hillary for being on Wal-Mart board, which, by the way, is a separate entity,than the corp. Advisory role, only. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | March 5, 2008 6:38 PM

Sarah, I agree with your comments. Barack is not a perfect candidate. I am disappointed with his pandering on the issue of NAFTA. I support free trade agreements as being overall good for the United States and other countries. I think a single payer health care system or employer mandate with the federal government providing major subsidies for other Americans would be bette than his or Hillary's health care proposals.

I would prefer a candidate with more experience in national office, but Barack Obama is better than Hillary Clinton in the following areas: being a potential uniter of most Americans, being consistent in his opposition to the war in Iraq, being more inspirational, having intelligent, sound ideas on most domestic policy issues, being willing to play by the established rules to win or lose fairly, thereby showing greater integrity, offering the possibility of a more rational foreign policy.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 6:43 PM

The problem with Hillary is that she is trying to be the incumbant by running as someone's wife after using a senate career like an entry level position: 6 years elected experiance.

This reminds me of G.W. Bush running on the Bush family name after he used the governorship as an entry level position in Texas. Whereas the truth was that we didn't know much about Bush's legislature record, as he hadn't really served extensively or handled any national problems. The same is true of Hillary Clinton, as we really don't know what she would do in office as she doesn't have a long public record. All we know is that she voted for the war when it was popular and against it when it was not. She does not have much publically recorded experiance. All she has is name brand recognition.

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 5, 2008 6:44 PM

My contacts inside the Obama campaign are that Obama is about to launch an offensive the likes that have not been seen before.

It will be an offensive that will remain above the fray that will utilize Clinton's words throughout the commercial(s) and Obama at the end.

2-5 days away...tick tock.

Meanwhile, Wyoming and Mississippi will go Obama 58%-42% or more giving us 29 States.

tick tock.

Posted by: Coming Awakening | March 5, 2008 6:45 PM

I will never vote for any ticket that has Hilary on it. Obama would be comitting political suicide by picking her. She has lied to the american people so much she cant stop it.

Posted by: Tony Corvelli | March 5, 2008 6:47 PM

Posted by: MPreJean | March 5, 2008 03:17
Why is it that everyone expected Hillary to drop out if she didn't win in TX & OH, but no one said anything about Barack dropping out when he didn't win--gee, do you think the media is trying to influence public thought in spite of our ability to decide for ourselves....
----------------------------------------------

Obama is clearly leading both in terms of delegates and popular votes. Why the hell would anyone ask him to drop out? Use some common sense.

Posted by: vmunikoti | March 5, 2008 6:50 PM

The only reason Clinton is talking about ticket with Obama is to get more votes in primaries, a democratic commentator not affiliated with any campaign on CNN even said that.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 6:52 PM

Both democratic candidates stand for demorcratic principles and ideals - in the specifics there are some differences - in the individual's characters there are some differences. The Republican candidate stands for never-ending war, and government of, for and by the corporations - a corporatocracy is what we now have and will continue to have if McCain wins. The people need to demand that we return to a real democracy. Do all you Hillary haters realize that you have swallowed "hook, line and sinker, the rhetoric/"framing of the issues" that was feed to you about the Clinton's by the GOP character assasination machine (read David Brock's "Blinded by the Right"). Aided and abetted by the Clintons for sure. You can support the dem who makes you feel good and through his speeches inspires you to envision and yearn for the America we all want to live in or you can support the dem who when faced with a crisis takes action and solves problems (read Carl Bernstein's "A woman in Charge")- Hillary has her faults and a less than stellar voting record - Barack has his faults too, they just haven't been framed yet and hammered into the electorate's psyche as have Hillary's(faults). I have also read and recommend Barack's two books - he is a wonderful writer and no doubt brilliant but I was left feeling that in his propensity to see all sides he equivicates and that is not a quality I would want in a Commander in Chief in 2008. OBama '16, Clinton '08.

Posted by: Patricia | March 5, 2008 6:55 PM

Hillary's Tax Forms Are a Blank Screen and We Know Way too Much About Her!

"Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes:

- As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)

- Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.'

- Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

- Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.

- In order to open 'slots' in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6389

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 7:09 PM

Good news for Democrats is the large number of frightened republicans there are on this board commenting. They are scared and have good reason to be. The party of fear is the party with the most to fear. BOO!

Posted by: Kevin Morgan | March 5, 2008 7:12 PM

Hillary's Tax Forms Are a Blank Screen and We Know Way too Much About Her! (Part 2)

- Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense:

---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.
---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.
---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury
---- And Bill was impeached by the House.
---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath).

- Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.

- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.

Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.
- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)
- As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.
- Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed.

Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet.
Feel free to check these records." From Blogger Eve

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6389

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 7:14 PM

To Senator Barack Obama.
Dear Sir
Please think about my advice :
Step back three steps.
Think ten times.
Do you think you could become President of the USA right now, in 2008
Or do you want to stay in the White House for 16 years
The First option is risky. 30%-40% of success
The second option is more reasonable and the chance is over 70%-80%

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 7:16 PM

It's very disappointing when Democrats engage in personal attacks and degrading comments about either Clinton or Obama. At the end of the nomination process, Democrats and supportive Independents and Republicans have to come together to achieve significant change, and demeaning personal attacks can only be damaging to this goal. Support your issues and your preferred candidate, but put aside poisonous polemics. To do otherwise only strengthens the right-wing opposition.

Posted by: keith_in_seattle | March 5, 2008 7:19 PM

5/5a. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) Who would you like to see win the Democratic nomination for president this year - (Hillary Clinton) or (Barack Obama)? Which candidate are you leaning toward?

NET LEANED VOTE

Hillary Barack Other Neither No
Clinton Obama (vol.) (vol.) opinion
3/2/08 43 50 1 3 2

(link to Poll on WP main page)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 7:24 PM

I note with interest Kathy's comments that HRC has 'presidential' experience because of her being a nurse to the physician in the WH.

I pose this question; would that make Monica Lewinsky less experienced than HRC but more experienced that Obama? She qualifies as a nurse to the physician - or doe she?!

Just wondering!

Posted by: Calvin Armstrong | March 5, 2008 7:33 PM

AND THE WINNER IS...(drum roll)......

The Media! The media won last night. They fell for HRC's call for negative attention on Obama and helped her squeak out a win perceived win in Ohio and Texas.

Just enough to give them more ads money for the record ratings they are getting.

Congratulations to CNN, MSNBC and even Fox for a job well done.

A honorable mention to HRC for willing to destroy her party and her peer in order to have it her way. If she doesn't win, neither will Obama. Karl Rove came in a close second place in the honorable mention category because of his assistance to the Hillary campaign.

Too bad it will be 60-40% loses for Clinton in Wyoming and Mississippi in the next 5 days.

Posted by: Coming Awakening | March 5, 2008 7:50 PM

I note with interest Kathy's comments that HRC has 'presidential' experience because of her being a nurse to the physician in the WH.

"I pose this question; would that make Monica Lewinsky less experienced than HRC but more experienced that Obama? She qualifies as a nurse to the physician - or doe she?!

Just wondering!"

This blog is getting more immature by the second.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 7:50 PM

I, and others I've spoken with today, who would not vote for either Obama or Clinton separately, would definitely vote for both a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket.

If they combined, I would vote for them regardless of which one is the presidential nominee and the vice-presidential nominee.

Combining forces would be the wisest thing either of them could do, utilizing the popularity of them both, and combined they would be an intelligent and formidable force for good.

Let's get the Republicans out of the White House!

Posted by: Linda Lee | March 5, 2008 8:07 PM

If Hillary Clinton has 35 years of experience she hasn't learned any manners in those same years. Obama was gracious in defeat last night congratulating her on her wins. The same cannot be said of her in her previous losses. You can tell a lot about a person in these small incidents.

Posted by: DH | March 5, 2008 8:08 PM

Democrats who really want to win the Presidency, need to chill the hot words about Obama and Clinton. They are campaigning, and are obligated to do what they can to win the nomination. However, we voters demonizing one or other of them is not helpful. In the end, it is about winning back the White House, not scoring flame points on other Democrats...

Posted by: CR | March 5, 2008 02:40 P

HOW RIGHT you are! Pity you didn't send this message to Hillary who has used half-truths and innuendo to try and destroy the Obama movement - without success, thank God!

Posted by: Digi | March 5, 2008 8:12 PM

Well it is time to wake up America. Hillary keeps talking about how good the economy was under Bill Clinton. The reason is she can not run on her own. Under her watch in Congress we have had a serious deterioration of the economy. I haven't seen Hillary sound the alarm about the failed policies in Washington untill she ran for President. With all that 35 years of experience why didn't she recognize the problem before it hit? With all that 35 years of experience why did her vote support the standards set by the banking industry lobby which created the home mortage crisis. With all her 35 years of experience why was her vote on the Iraq War wrong. With her thiry five years of experience why did our troops go into war with inadequate armor and equipment. Where was the leadership and out-cry. If she was concerned about NAFTA in 1993 where is her criticizm and effort to strenghten it been in her Senate career? Her Senate career is over twice as long as Obama's with a lot less to show for it. If you want leadership, please show me where her leadership has shown up. No where in the Clinton history has there been a strong sense of correct action in any military or security situation. When Bill Clinton had the opportunity to get Osama Bin Laden he backed off and didn't order the strike. When Hillary had the decision to take military action she made the decision to attack a country with out reading the information and with disregard to the real threat of Al Queda's where abouts. I don't want her or McCain to make 3:00 a.m. decision when they haven't even taken the time to consider that the enemy was in Afganistan and Pakistan! Their decision to ATTACK IRAQ does not lend any comfort to have them in a position to make sound judgements concerning the saftey of America. Hillary has also attacked Obama on his associations with Resko which he has come out and addressed. She said he needs to bring everything out in the open as if there is more. The Clinton camp says Obama should present more evidence of non-involvement with Rezko eeven though they don't know if there is any more. This inspite of the fact that the Clintons have scandals from White Water to the recent Asian lobbyist who raised funds for her that was indicted and her obvious picture with Rezko. There must be more to her involvement with Rezko also if there is more to Obama's. All this comes from the Female Candidate who has refused to release her tax returns, whose White House papers, phone calls, and involvement have not been released in Eight years. Not to mention that donors to her husbands Preidential Library have not been made public and if they were you would see some ties to the Muslim World which she now owes a debt to. It is time for Obama to step up and play the political chess game like Hillary Clinton plays it. Obama has 3 flaws in this campaign. Honest! Respect! and Integrity !!!!

Posted by: mvers | March 5, 2008 8:14 PM

Do your parents know that you are using their computer?

Doesn't really matter how you natter...the young people are going to vote "mature" or not - and they wont be voting for Hillary.

Posted by: Digi | March 5, 2008 8:16 PM

Hillary's attributes: Integrity? No. Intelligence? Yes. Wisdom? No. Honesty? No. Thief of government property? Yes. Vindictiveness? Yes. Visciousness? Yes. Experience in leadership? No. Willingness to stay with Bill because of mutual power play? Yes. Willing to win regardless of what it takes? Yes. What a candidate! For '08: ANYONE but another Clinton.

Posted by: Bob | March 5, 2008 8:16 PM

In my lifetime I have always voted for a democratic presidential candidate.

. . . . . if Hillary is nominated, it will be the first time I vote for a Republican. The negative campaign she is using is a Bush tatic. Bill dishonors the presidential office by his actions while serving and had a negative impact on the democratic party. His infidelities was one of the reasons the party lost the presidential elections in 2000. What ever good he did as president will always be overshadowed by his behavior and subsequent impeachment while in the white house.

Hillary and Bill as a team will do what is good for the Clinton's and not what is good for the country. The republican party must be licking their chops hoping to go up against her. The folks who put Bush over the top in 2000 and 2004 will be back in record numbers, along with disatisfied demomcrats to vote for a Republican victory if Hillary CLINTON gets the Democratic Party nomination.

. . . . . she should step aside and request an appointment to a cabinet post as Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services. This would allow her to use all her experience and try and finish the job she started in the early '90's.

We need a fresh start without the old guard hanging on. This is not a two family country when it comes to the white house office.

Posted by: Over the Speedlimit for Obama | March 5, 2008 8:17 PM

Hillary is our best chance to dig out of this mess. Obama is an unknown quantity while McCain would be another Bush. Leaving politics out of my choice, I went with what I truly believe is best for our country: Hillary.

Posted by: erkola | March 5, 2008 8:20 PM

Coming Awakening, if you have contacts with Barack's camp, please tell them to suggest to Barack he immediately announce he will not be a Vice-Presidential nominee, under any circumstances. Her transparent ploy is to win votes, especially among some superdelegates.
Unless he issues a William Sherman denial of any willingness to be a Vice-Presidential candidate, her strategy may be successful.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 8:23 PM

Obamaites have the exclusive right to the word CHANGE. That' right. Just the word and no substance.
Real change will come with Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:23 PM

Response to super baised Alex H who says:
"That means to focus on the fact that Tony's Rezko's partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in states like Vermont, Iowa, and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Texas and Florida.

The Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Changeable-Hope BS and assorted plagiarisms of Hussein (along with his theft of most of John Edwards ideas) has been a delightful distraction from reality. Now the responsible and mature Democrats must get serious and work to elect a capable president.

Posted by: ALEX H. | March 5, 2008 03:22 PM "

While you are talking about RESKO, try MR HSU who most certainly will be on trial with both Clintons testifying as to their involvement with HIM...Resko can't compete with THAT can of worms..and they have no excuses - they are the ones with EXPERIENCE, remember?

Think back on "White Water"


Think back on the girls Bill Had while in the White House.

Oh by the way, his name is William - shades of Willy Lynch? If not, why is the name Hussein troubling you? Should we not vote for anyone named NATASHA (just in case she is a Russian Spy?) and the Name ALEX...is that short for Alexandrovich- you relic of the Russian Communist Party and the Cold War?

Or Alexander - so that means you are Greek - and not a Protestant Christian or Jew? What's in a name? - ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Digi | March 5, 2008 8:25 PM

I cannot believe some of the comments, the old and the uneducated!!
So stuff them, cast them aside, they do not count!!
If that is what Obama supporters are about, then God help America

Posted by: Gerry O'Connor | March 5, 2008 8:28 PM

Coming Awakening, I am having some difficulty getting through. I want to add some of Hillary's supporters are being naive or disingenous in proposing a Clinton-Obama ticket. Barack, if he is Vice-President for eight years, will be obliged to defend the domestic and foreign policies of the Clintons for eight years. He would then likely be considered a less viable candidate, hardly an advocate of change, in 2016.

Unfortunately the historical fact is since 1952 the GOP has won nine of fourteen presidential elections. There have been some strong Democratic candidates who have lost, often partly because of smear tactics used by the Republicans. Only once in the history of the modern two party system, beginning with the 1856 election, have the Democrats won more than two consecutive presidential elections, between 1932-1948.

Given the way some the media encourage popular dissatisfaction with persons in high office, history suggests those who support sixteen years of Hillary, then Barack in the White House are likely deluding themselves.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 8:34 PM

"h.D. (have had it for 6 years). Please do not insult me or my common sense/intelligence. You went on about how Clinton supporters are uneducated and old. And now you're insulting my demographic as well. My opinions are just that, but I am not denigrating someone else in the process whereas you are. Not one of my posts said anything demeaning about Barack Obama - not one.

Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2008 04:02 PM

Kathy, let's leave the racist word "denigrating" out of it ok? - it originally meant to "blacken".... and why would you have anything demeaning to say about Barack Obama?

What has he done that has not been done 50 times over by the sainted Hillary?

What do you have your PHD in? Not human behaviour, I am sure....
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on ME...even with a PHD! Don't let the Clintons sucker you in!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:36 PM

Hillary may just win this election. Probably by the super delegates who most likely owe her some favors.(True or not that will be the perception. I fear she can not beat McCain. She, herself, has said many times that she can bring the republicans together better than any one else. That is no laughing matter. I think she is right. She is the Republicans dream. She will shatter the democratic party and bring the republicans out of the woodwork. She will again bring apathy to many who now have hope. She just might win...but what at what cost?

Posted by: Linda Patrick | March 5, 2008 8:39 PM

Haha obama supporters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he spent so much in all those states, yet lost terrrrrrrrrrrrribly.

he has won RED states. he hasn't won a single blue state (other than ILLINOIS) that a democrats NEEDS in order to become president. hillary has won michigan, florida, new york, new jersey, california, ohio, and soon, pensylvannia

Jerry,

In this race all of that is MOOT..
By the very dynamics and length of this race, Obama would do well in the general as so would HRC.

McCain and the republicans will not win the White House. Regardless of who the Dem Nnom is.


Posted by: Vance MCDaniel | March 5, 2008 8:40 PM

Iam a 60 years old and was 52 when Bill Clinton left the White House. When he left the White House there was a balanced budgwet, a surplus, and the National debt reduced, and jobs and the economy were good. Hillary has aptly pointed this out. But she has ommitted 1 detail. For 6 years of the 8 Clinton Presidential years the House and Senate was controlled by Republicans. Opps, you forgot that Hillary. The first noteable thing Bill Clinton did was to effectively lose control of the Congress. Hillary's campaign has said the Republican States that Obama has won are insignificant because they will vote for McCain in the fall campaign. What about those Democratic Congress men and women who need to be realected to hold the House and Senate? This certianly doesn't look like a good plan to help them get realected or to add to numbers in the Senate with the Clinton Campaign rehtoic. It looks like she may be able to lose controll of the Congress 2 years earlier than Bill Clinton did. A Vice-President under Hillary Clinton would be as valuable as it was under Al Gore. The Clintons did not strongly support him for President when he ran in 2000. Obama could make 2 fool decisions yet. 1 to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. 2. to be Hillary Clinton's running mate if she is the Democratic Candidate. I seriously doubt he will make either decision.

Posted by: mvers | March 5, 2008 8:42 PM

"Dinosaurs"? Yes, a uniting message.

Put me in the "dinosaur" category (haha) - under 50 yrs, over 50k/yr, post-grad degree, supporting Clinton. Oooh . am I confused "clintonista" but should be Obama-bot?!! ICK ICK ICK people!!! STOP the name calling.

Pointing out differing ideas, differing actions, differing policies is NOT "negative" .. . its politics and "politics" is not a dirty word.

Yes, she failed with healthcare in the 90s - guess what ? She was ahead of her time - NOONE - even leading Dems - were for it in the 90s - it truly was a "moral obligation" for her. I give her credit for even trying. Heck of a lot more than the real "dinosaurs" did (Kennedy???). Did she make mistakes? Absolutely!! Did she learn from them? Appears so - she has worked successfully "across the aisle" numerous times since then. And, conservative commentators on televison (while disagreeing with her policies) have praised her for her savvy. Compare that to Obama voting present 129 times and missing the Kyle_Lieberman amendment vote (and you can disagree with HRC's vote on that amendment(I do!) - but at least it wasn't present/absent).

The health care fight will be very different in 2009 - business and labor unions both want it now. She paved the way. That's cool, even if it failed initially. And clearly its a passion of hers. That's cool, too, in my book.

Matt at 5:45 . . . . .Re: superdelgates overturning "THE" vote - what "THE" vote? Neither delegate can win without superdelegates - and BOTH candidates are working that route. Obama says they should follow the "will of the voters" . . .WHICH voters? Nationwide (the almost 100 delegate) or state by state? Which means HRC would win the huge superdelegate numbers in NY, CA, NJ, MA vs. the tiny amount in ID, AK, UT. Either way, rules are being made up as we go along.

Bless him, but he can't change the superdelegate rules as he goes, neither can she. I appreciate that if the overall delegate count is overwhelming, he has a case .. .but what is overwhelming? Let the primary continue and we'll see. Enough with the "Clinton should withdraw" argument. Let PA, IN, etc. vote! The Dems should be able to deal with a prolongated primary vote - this is the year WE dinasaurs, clintonistas, and obamabots can do it!

BREATHE!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:43 PM

Will Hillary kill hope as she enjoys her reinvigorated spoiler role?

Here she is, a tool of the lobbyists, claiming she is the "people's" choice.

Hillary even refuses to release her tax returns for the past two years, which would reveal the source of her sudden wealth.

If Hillary claims experience in foreign affairs, then let her share responsibility for her husband's immoral inaction on Rwanda, when hundreds of millions of black Africans were slaughtered while the Clinton White House refused to act.

(According to the British Guardian newspaper: "President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. ...

"It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda])

For every comment the Clinton trained seals make about Hillary's favorite target--Rezko--it is important that people remember the reason Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, called the Clintons our "First Grifters."

Remember their ties to disgraced fugitive financier Norman Hsu?

Remember Bill's supping at the trough of the emir of Dubai?

Speaking of the Middle East, remember Hillary's silence when Yassir Arafat's wife libeled the state of Israel?

Of course, the media bends over trying to accommodate Hillary, today the MSNBC talking heads explained that they have to tread softly because it is hard to criticise a woman.

National security and the fate of the country are apparently tied to some moronic political correctness from a media that did not exactly cover itself with glory when America was about to go to war.

Of course, today's media establishment cares as much about access to the red carpet as anyone else.

The legendary journalist Edward Murrow would have liked Barack Obama, beause he also believed, like Obama himself has said, that cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.

Fight back America!

Believe in yourself!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 5, 2008 8:48 PM

Every one seems to be claiming that Texas was won by Hilary. The results of Texas are not there yet. The winner is the one who gets most delegates.
Texas is not yet done.

Posted by: Khalid | March 5, 2008 8:50 PM

"A major figure in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, John Huang (Chinese: 黄建南) worked for Lippo Bank in California, Worthen Bank in Arkansas, and as deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs in U.S. President Bill Clinton's Commerce Department before he became a chief fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in 1996.[1][2][3]

On August 12, 1999, John Huang pleaded guilty to a felony conspiracy charge for violating campaign finance laws and was sentenced to one year of probation"

...at least that's what one will find on Wikipedia..where much of the world goes to do its own investigative research, when the media shuts down a story on March 3.


I doubt Barack Obama would fit very well with the likes of "Friend of Bill and Hillary" John HUANG in the 3rd Term of a TEAM CLINTON WHITE HOUSE....and by the way what ever happenned to those Hillary Clinton ,WHITE HOUSE VISITOR LOGS , HUANG said he made frequent visits to the First Lady. Is he a liar? What's in the written record? When will WE THE PEOPLE see her VISITOR records.

Posted by: progressive patriot | March 5, 2008 8:56 PM

Seems that a Clinton-Obama ticket in that order would be the best solution. Senator Clinton gets the top job with Senator Obama being in line to succeed her into the presidency in due time.
In spite of incredible mass media bias against her, Hillary Clinton won this last round in the on-going primary races.
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/a-last-word-on.html
It seems that Barack Obama faces, finally, media scrutiny after a long honeymoon period.
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/02/obamas-populism.html
Unless the Democrats unite, Senator McCain and the Republican Party will prevail on Election Day 2008.

Posted by: Brigitte N. | March 5, 2008 9:14 PM

Clinton can hint all she wants for vice president. But I wouldn't like Hillary in the White House period. She knows she is not strong in a General Election with McCain. I want someone fair and smart with a deep background.

Posted by: QuietStormX | March 5, 2008 9:21 PM

-posted by martimr1
Even though it's not as much fun, let's stop bashing the Democratic candidates on blogs and start pointing out the differences between the Democratic platform and the Republican. Let's start urging the candidate we support (him or her) to do the same. The Republicans have stumbled around and nominated their most electable candidate. Let's try to do the same - without having that person OR the respected runner-up arrive at the convention with black eyes given to them by fellow Democrats

thank you martimr. that deserves re-posting

Posted by: BrianO | March 5, 2008 10:11 PM

Is this the "healing" Hilary was speaking about earlier in the campaign? I am a woman and a democrat but a Clinton-Obama ticket does not appeal to me.

If she's at the top of the ticket, I'll have no choice but to set this one out. I am repelled by her tactics. I am more than repelled by her mix of on-again, off-again, pseudo-macho woe-is-me politics.

Posted by: Olivia | March 6, 2008 12:33 AM

what has Barack Obama done in office nothing as far as I see it so am I suppose to just take him at his word? I couldn't do that again Like with Bush . That really hurt the Nation with him in office.
I need a leader that would have to be Mrs.Clinton.

Posted by: jake | March 6, 2008 12:38 AM

That is the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party!And both Obama and Hillary! All of his follows and all hers. That would give absolutely no chance of McCaine. It would unify and it would be unbeatable. Because you know McCaine is going to look for a conservative to balance out his election.

Posted by: GREAT ! | March 6, 2008 8:53 AM

Its going to be a long stretch to the end. Obama!

P.S. Ed! I saw you on msnbc the other day, keep up the good work!

Posted by: M. Flores | March 6, 2008 9:36 AM

Oh my gosh!!!!! Please Senator Obama, never ever put your name on a ticket with Hillary Clinter. I will still remain at home in November if her name is anywhere on that ticket!

Remember - she needs you, you don't need her.

Posted by: Dustee | March 6, 2008 11:23 AM

This is my last post on any blog regarding these primaries because I'm tired of the circus-like media ratings game whose goal is to drag this thing out regardless of what state our country is in.

1. I and several million other people are TIRED of the old divisive political games and the mud-slinging that has been accepted as the way to run a campaign for public office. Trying to assassinate someone's character with trivial and baseless insinuations really says that you don't have enough qualities to be an attractive candidate on your own.

2. We are TIRED of the media trying to MANUFACTURE the news instead of just REPORTING it. There seems to be no ethical line that these networks won't cross. If there is a legitimate issue to be weighed in on then, by all means, inform the American people. But splashing misleading stories and photographs that EVERYONE agrees are baseless with the intention of inflaming the worst in the American people is sickening!

3. We are tired of the two-party deadlock that leaves the American people with the short end of the stick at the end of the day. We need elected officials who have the charisma to establish influence on both sides of the isle and the wisdom to compromise with good ideas from opposing viewpoints.

4. We need elected officials to exercise sound judgment and use the power we have endowed them with to do what is RIGHT AND NOT JUST POPULAR. The Presidency is not chosen on seniority and for good reason. Contrary to popular belief, you can spend a lot of time as a public official in Washington and not be an admirable public servant. Look up James Buchanan....for an adverse example, look up ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

5. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS UNITY....PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Whoever I deem most able to do that will get my vote in November.


Obama '08

Posted by: K from TX | March 6, 2008 5:33 PM

What? I don't know about a split ticket! Hillary is a MONSTER! She is a very mean woman and controlling. I hold her responsible for the 4,000 plus American servicemen death's because she authorized the Iraq war! She has a campaign to discredit Obama across the nation. She's losing. If it comes to a split ticket, she has to be on the bottom. She's the split-tail!

Posted by: Carson Antelope | March 7, 2008 11:41 AM

that is a ticket that would never work after all the negativity that came from her camp. they just agree to disagree..right now she's looking for an in into the big house. this is part of her stategy, she's a fighter, very calculating she did not bank on obama taking to country by storm. now she planting the seed now talking about a dream team so obama voters will not defect to john mccain like goodcop/badcop theory will follow behind her if he refuse to take second seat vp after she tryies to seats fla/michigan votes .. in this primary i found she is calling all the shots all they way around with everyone breaks all the rules who say what to who, what can be done, how is according to her and if it does not go her way she states foul play
"shame on you Barak obama' like she was his mama scalding a young child you think he would want to to be a dream team it would be parents and son demeaning a child talking about a dream ticket more like a nightmare. I sense they are in they are in trouble and no one wants to work with her as second vp and bill in the white house.or maybe that's why john edwards is holding out for an endorsement hmmm

Posted by: richdoll | March 8, 2008 7:43 PM

Most Obama supporters that I have spoken to including myself say we will not vote for Clinton on the ticket. No more Clintons, no more

Posted by: anne | March 8, 2008 8:16 PM

Only Ms. Priviledge Hillary would suggest a VP position to someone who is beating her get real!!!!!

Posted by: Steve | March 8, 2008 8:19 PM

PBPrid U cool ))

Posted by: zxevil160 | March 12, 2008 3:39 PM

At this point, there may not be a choice but to team up. We have to unite or we WILL lose the White House.

www.TogetherWeWill08.org

Posted by: Jesse | April 23, 2008 2:05 PM

It is one thing to say or weite something out, but always ask yourself if there is a SENSE in whatever you had said, not even to yoursef but for othres to share.

As such, Obama and Hillary on A TICKET will be a TABOO. This should never, never happen. She has caused a lot of Problem for Democrtas enough and look desperate to get in OB 's Coattails in order to cause him the election agaist McCain.

It will be A TOTAL DISSERVICE. Hillary has got no INTEREST to seeing Obama beatung McCain. Who ever suggesting this need to ask herslf or himself what is the REALITY of a OLD Liars and A complete down to heart Obama, fresh and New, who is dropping old Washingtons ideas for new ones. How will he be able to accomplish his Election Promises whilst Hillary shall be SABOTAGING all his plans.

That suggestion of A DREAM TICKET shall rrsults to A HELL DREAM, God forbids BAD THINGS.

Posted by: Roy | May 6, 2008 2:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company