Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton vs. Obama

Goodness me, a lot of our Readers Who bothered to Comment this morning don't like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). As Anne E. Kornblut reports, Clinton has launched a more aggressive and personal attack against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) after a new poll shows her losing ground to him in the Iowa caucus race.

A few of our RWC, of course, assert that the writer has an anti-Clinton agenda, presumably because she reported that the senator was directly asked whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character. Clinton responded, "It's beginning to look a lot like that." But many of the comments, some from self-proclaimed Democrats, say the character problem is with Clinton. And some, for some stranger reason, would like to see more discussion of issues and less about personalities.

While that is the hot political story today, a Sunday article on the way the military deals with mental health issues -- a continuation of the Post's reporting on how the military has failed to address the needs of mentally and physically wounded military personnel -- has received a flood of comments. The article's central conclusion is that "the military still largely deals with mental health issues in an ad hoc way, often relying on the judgment of combat-hardened commanders whose understanding of mental illness is vague or misinformed."

The article's protagonist, 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, is facing military charges of attempting suicide and endangering the life of another soldier while serving in Iraq. The comments of our readers -- and there are of hundreds of them -- are almost all angry at what has happened here.

First to the Clinton-Obama story.

wardropper advised, "Don't go there, Hillary. Once you start questioning character, your own specimen will be in the spotlight."

And miked98said, "...Hillary isn't going to win the battle for "good character" -- any more than she'll win for being the nicest person in the race. But she
could win on the issues, if only she has the courage to address them..."

bghgh was supportive, saying "Ooh, no more Ms. Nice Lady. I hope she can make it stick. He has been taking pot shots at her for a while. Time to fight back."

And sbundley said, "Clinton take my advice. The last thing you want to do is challenge someone's honesty especially when you are the public face for dishonesty in a politician... Hyprocrisy thy name is Clinton and it won't play in Iowa."

jhbyer suggested that "...Hillary is stooping to play a Republican game that Dems don't like, and it may well backfire."

As for the story itself, centauri99_99 said, "...Ms kornblut you had no problem as long as obama was on the attck. But you have to find fault when hillary is on the attack. Then you come up with master pieces like 'His advisers -- and some of hers -- believe that if Clinton loses the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, her status as the front-runner nationally will evaporate'... Chris matthews' type meaningless attack."

beth-wade suggested, "... We would be better off if the media blacked out mention of the entire tribe and presented unidentified silhouettes talking about the issues that face America."

Not_A_Libscum [interesting name] said, "Talk about the Kettle calling the Pot black. While certainly not an Obama supporter; I would opine that Obama has more character and integrity in his little finger than Mrs. Clinton has in her entire body."

We'll close on this topic with spike59101, who wrote, "Quite frankly I wonder why she is wasting her time in Iowa... Why she'd even care about what a state full of hicks think astounds me."

Now to the comments on Lt. Whiteside.

RichardMiller333 said, "The U.S. Army creed states that, "I will never leave a fallen comrade," unless you become mentally ill, in which case you will be treated with contempt, no matter how good your past record."

benmatheny suggested political retribution, in writing, "People remember this Fine Soldier and Avenge her by voting every single one of the GOP Scumbags out of Office in 2008."

kansasgal1 wrote, "As someone who works with suicidal clients, I am appalled at how the military is dealing with this let alone appalled that they have a policy that allows them to do this. Are there any limits those in power won't go to to avoid treating our brave men and women and their families with compassion after they break...?"

lawrence_wirth said, "More young lives destroyed, with no accountability for the human and financial costs that will affect the nation for generations."

slate_77 wrote, "Disgraceful conduct on the part of the military. Look what you get for serving."

And benmatheny said, "Maybe if she had started a War on a lie, gotten 3000 Soldiers killed, cheated the Veterans of benefits due, and flew onto the deck of a carrier declaring Mission Accomplished, she would get better treatment"

All comments on the Clinton story are here.

All comments on the Lt. Whiteside story are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  December 3, 2007; 10:07 AM ET
Categories:  Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Too Much on Taylor?
Next: Belting Bolton


it's clear where the confidence, experience and toughness is....hillary

Posted by: kmp | December 22, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Aron | December 19, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Neo | December 19, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Bill | December 19, 2007 4:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hero | December 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Arnie | December 18, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hero | December 18, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hero | December 18, 2007 3:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Hero | December 18, 2007 3:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kir | December 17, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kir | December 17, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Fioricet pills pain relief pills overnight shipping free prescription | December 15, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Linda Pillars, that wasn't a Senator, much less Obama, who swore on Thomas Jefferson's Koran, but Rep from Minn elected in 2006. Obama is a member of the Church of Christ, sworn on a Bible in 2004. We don't say his middle name HUSSEIN because we never say male candidates' middle names. The only one I know is Obama's and only because some people are silly enough to pretend it matters. BTW, you do know there are men in our prisons for robbery, assault, murder and other violent crimes who are named Jesus? Thousands. It's a very common Hispanic name pronounced "Hey sue" but spelled just like a man you might confuse them with. I'm guessing you're too smart, as are we who would vote for Obama.

Posted by: jhbyer | December 12, 2007 7:51 AM | Report abuse

The first time I went to an Obama gathering, I came away with a true feeling that this man would be accepted by leaders of countries that currently hate us and he could actually make friends of them. I don't ever remember having the chance to vote for such an articulate, intelligent and honest person. The only thing that Hilary has going for her is Bill. If Obama has any weakness at all, it's in mudslinging. Does anyone else, besides me, think that Rudy J resembles Colonel Klink?

Posted by: BillB | December 6, 2007 6:10 AM | Report abuse

One issue l'd like to see get some focus, from Hillary, Obama, and everyone else is OVERPOPULATION. . . . . Do they believe it's a problem, might be a problem, no problem at all? . . . . But even though a large population effects everything from resource depletion, urban spraw, water shortages (yes, along with the weather), oil prices, global-warming, immigration, etc, no one will even utter the word -- repeat: . . The media, the candidates, the talking heads all run from that simple word like it was the curse of King Tut and the Black Plague all rolled into one. . . . . . Just asked yourself, when was the last time you even read or heard the word from a candidate or media?

Overpopulation, the unspeakable issue.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 5, 2007 10:44 PM | Report abuse

It is a sorry thing to see how many misogynists there are out there. Take a good look at the language they use when describing Hilary. Clearly the women haters do not like Hilary's spirited strength. Hilary is a hard and dedicated working woman who has done a lot of work for women and children in this country - your independant research will show you that. I was very much for the Clinton/Obamam ticket - thinking this would give that young man some years of experience - it is unfortunate he started mud-slinging at his own party. Shame on you Obama - whatever happened to the positive that you promised. you are destroying your own party - I would vote for anyonme but you.

Posted by: Anji R. | December 5, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm voting for John Edwards. Hillary and Obama are too polarizing. I think most of the other Democrats are better than either one of them.
But in the end, any Democrat is better than what the Republicans offer.

Posted by: sccoast1700 | December 4, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't someone call him by his middle name Barack'Hussein'
Obama? Maybe that would end all this stuff. And the fact he wanted to sworn into office as a Senator on the Koran?
Wake up people

Posted by: Linda Pillars | December 4, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I just don't have much to say lately.
Eh. Not much on my mind lately.
buy fioricet with codeine

Posted by: is fioricet a controlled substance | December 4, 2007 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Also: Ron Paul is insane. Here's to gutting the Dept of Ed, returning to the gold standard (!), and electing Howard Roark Secretary of the ... oh-crap-we-just-imploded-all-federal-government Department. Give me a break. And the "Dr. Ron Paul" canard needs to end. Like, yesterday. If half of these loons had taken the time to say: "Dr. Howard Dean" in their pre-Iowa blathering, we'd all be better off. Take your high school ideology elsewhere, kids.

Posted by: Joe Lisboa | December 4, 2007 1:12 AM | Report abuse

"Osma Boma" ... really? Really?!
I weep for the future of our nation.


Posted by: Joe Lisboa | December 4, 2007 1:10 AM | Report abuse

The people voted last end the conditions the middle east. Did Irag attack on 9 11 I didnt know that!!!!!!160000 troops cannot find osama benladem??? come on people. The idiot in the white house is herding you like sheep.the constitution indicates what we as a people can do. Congress, get off your butts!!!! If it were not for that one "ally" in the middle east, oil would flow here like water. read between the lines people!!!!!

Posted by: prds003 | December 3, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

It is so frightening to see folks mad at Hillary Clinton because of something her husband did years ago. Its even more frightening to watch folks adore young Barrack Obama, who has three years Senate experience,zero foreign policy experience and an ambitious ego the size of the grand canyon. BECAUSE HE HAS BROWN SKIN? That is certainly why Oprah is campaigning, isn't it? And, I am not a Clinton supporter, but I'm no fool, and Obama is no "president".

Posted by: zaney | December 3, 2007 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think I can be rational about this in saying that Hillary is doing a bad job attacking. Personally going negative rather than taking some indirect jabs like Obama and having her campaign do the dirty work is a terrible idea given that it plays into negative perceptions of her. Releasing so many different attacks in the span of 2 days means that no single issue is going to captivate the press and have a chance to stick. Indeed, some of the items in such a long list are necessarily silly enough that the Obama campaign can focus on those (kindergarden) and ignore the PAC issue. Not to mention that the extreme on/off nature of the negativity makes it transparent and easily tuned out.

Frankly, I think this is a poorly directed crisis response to Obama's surge in the polls. I wonder if she'll have the guts to bring up Rezko if things keep going the way they are. I would like to make sure Obama can deftly handle the Rezko issue before the Republicans inevitably hit him with it in the general.

Posted by: Nissl | December 3, 2007 8:53 PM | Report abuse

I will be voting for Hillary Clinton, she is the best and most qualified. Hang in there Hillary.
Osma Boma is just a nice young man no experience to speak of, he will not prevail.

Posted by: Carol S | December 3, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I, and many others, much prefer Hilary Clinton but too busy to write...there are daily work to do, but mind has long been made on this.

Posted by: Cook | December 3, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you:

Posted by: avraam jack | December 3, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

most of those here i suppose are democrats yet they sound like republicans. they like voicing out how they HATE this candidate or that candidate. it's pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 3, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win the democratic nomination. He's fresh and he's honest. But Obama's victory won't be because everyone loves will be due to the converging of the enemies of Hillary of which there are many! Hillary is dishonest, corrupt, and arrogant. See for yourself by researching the sketchy details that surround her being investigated in Arkansas for suspicious oversight in state spending. You'll be surprised at what you find...then again (knowing Hillary) maybe you won't.

Posted by: SCstudent | December 3, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

To be quite fair, there is not one candidate worth anyone's vote. I would just as soon vote for Hugo Chavez if he were running. Politicians are all liars, smoke and mirrors. It's hard to trust anyone to please all Americans.

Posted by: Rick | December 3, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

My personal favorite is Bill Richardson. At the same time, I like Obama very very much. Of the two, I think Obama has a better chance than Richardson to get the nomination. I fear Hillary because I view her as the most vulnerable to the republicans, and another republican president means the completion of the "Waterloo" of the United States as a great nation. Has anyone thought of an Obama-Richardson ticket. The vision, grasp, and understanding that both of these men have of foreign affairs is absolutely compelling. It is also much more representative of the multi-racial and multicultural nation into which today's United States has evolved. We need to move ahead and leave the Bush vs. Clinton era behind us. I beg to disagree with the ladies, but Hillary is certainly no Margaret Thatcher. Go Obama!!! Go Richardson!!!
Richard Cadena
Expatriate American residing in Mexico City since February 1966

Posted by: Richard Cadena | December 3, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

We still have a long way to go until the conventions and that means that very little of what we are discussing now will be current then. I think that no matter who you back in the election,the fact that the internet is allowing us to voice are opinions may bring us closer together than we have been since world war II. We will not agree and that is the only constant. We need to excercise our concerns by making the candidate stick to the issues. We can nip it in the bud when they mudsling by calling them on it and pushing the issues backmin their faces whether it be Dem or Rep. I think what is most important to us as American is that we let the candidates know that the next president is going to represent our agendas/issues and all this acting out is unacceptable to us.
Let just do what our forefather intended 230 years ago and use our voices and our votes for better government on ever level.

Posted by: Lady 'n'Waiting | December 3, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I find it difficult to believe that Hillary would have the nerve to question anybody's honesty or integrity! She would do better to focus on the issues at hand. And how about answering questions for a change instead of either avoiding the question until she sees how the political wind blows or changing her mind a dozen times. She can't begin to compete with Obama on honesty and integrity!

Posted by: linda a. | December 3, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Please Hillary, get the nomination, that way it will be easyer for the GOP to get a landslide victory!

AS the the Words of Gov. Mike Huckabee lets send Hillary to MARS!

Posted by: Todd | December 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has no chance to win election, absolutely none! No Dems should be thrilled to vouch for Hilary, that will dash the hope for 2008!

Just wait for Republican attack machine blas Clintons for so many scandals; Monica Lewinsky will hunch CLintons again! 'I never had sex with that woman' - ah, what a brazen lie?

What is the attraction for Hilary? I don't get it, do you?

Posted by: Cohen | December 3, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

While I will be voting for Bill Richardson, the most experienced and qualified candidate, I much prefer Obama over Clinton. I can't understand what the appeal of Hillary Clinton. Her record is just one failure after another - she failed to reform health care in the 90s, she failed to oppose the Iraq, and she's failing right now to stand up to Bush on Iran. Why should we believe that as soon as she is elected president she will suddenly turn around and start getting things done? Any Democrat BUT Hillary!

Posted by: Mitchel | December 3, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I love the Clintons..Please, how can anyone tear down the Clinton's and their actions in the White House when our present Air Force 1 and 2 are rarely on the ground other than for maintenance. Our sitting president has problem spent more time working at his rance cutting trees and bush than he has being our Countries leader, and how about the deficiet???hmmmmmmmmmm

Posted by: nuff stuff | December 3, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at how everyone has such disdain for Hillary. She might not be the candidate I most identify with, or vote for, but she has behaved with dignity through things that would have destroyed many people. Staying with, or being married to a man who cheats (Henry Hyde anyone?) does not make a woman weak, or evil. It makes her human. I invite you to take a look at your feelings and see if you would apply them to a man in the same situation.

Posted by: Liberal and proud | December 3, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Slick Willy will have lots of time to play games in the White House when his wife is off wining and dining Holly Wood celebrities on the USA company jet. Wake up America! Have not you learned any thing from the past? Our nations highest leadership position should not be held by anyone with such low moral convictions. Bill and Hillery are both gifted con artists who will say or do anything in order to be back in power. Vote for people with high moral values and we can stop the steady decline of people around the globe despising the USA for jamming our views down their throat. Sleep well and know the truth will always set you FREE.

Posted by: Terry R | December 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Although i find name calling and character attacks offensive, what i really care about are the things candidates voted on. Hillary was a big time supporter of the war in Iraq, and didn't change her tune until public opinion turned against the war. I want a leader who has moral integrity and takes a position based on what's right, NOT what's going to get the most votes. I'm voting Edwards, although i wish i could vote for Kucinich.

Posted by: jeff h | December 3, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama started the whole dirty name calling mud slinging exchanges after he fell behind, wasn't it???

Posted by: trevor | December 3, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Tough situation. Obama probably can't win, but the last place she needs to go is to the Left, which is where he is coming from and scoring points. She is always focused past the primaries and yet Bill demonstrated someone like Obama could take her. If she goes nasty now, she's finished.

Somehow Emma Thompson was probably not shrill enough, cynical enough, hard enough, to really get her right in Primary Colors. I think that Hillary at this point is mostly just anger and determination.

The whole crowd of leading candidates on both sides don't seem to be people I would want to spend much time around.

Posted by: Xenophon | December 3, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

TO: Ben from TN

You hit the nail on the head brother! She is a False Witness. It seems like everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. Just like her husband.

Posted by: NoSoup4U | December 3, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It is really quite consistent that Hillary finds plenty to demonize in Obama, yet does not recognize her own glaring character flaws. Hillary has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As such, when someone is useful, as Obama was at past Democratic Conventions, he is idealized and even publically lauded -- but when he offers criticism of her, he is vilified.

Hillary does not worry about hypocrisy because she genuinely does not believe she has any character flaws. Rather, her pathological sense of entitlement causes her to truly believe that she can freely break rules and laws that the rest of us follow, due to her specialness. She will feel persecuted if she is held accountable to the same rules as other people.

Do you ever wonder why she has stayed married to Bill after all that happened? He's useful, that's why. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a narcissist if he/she have a use for someone. But once that person has been bled dry of that use, a narcissist will cast them aside, not in a hateful, vindictive way -- but without a second thought, as if they never existed.

Posted by: Carol | December 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I feel sick. I had the misfortune of reading Hillary Clinton's "fact check" on her website. She took words out of context, personalized generic statements, and reinterpreted Obama's statements to try to make it sound like he's being negative. Please read it for yourself.

Case in point. Hillary says "Sen Obama has launched a sustained attack on her character, calling her 'disingenuous,' 'untruthful,' and 'dishonest.'" Then reference a quote about Obama saying, "I think she was being disingenuous."

Big difference between a complaint (specific) and a character attack (general). Saying someone is being disingenuous is different from saying they ARE disingenuous. If Hillary cannot understand the difference, she has no business trying to communicate with national or world leaders. If she can understand the difference, then she would do better to seek clarification than to counteraccuse Obama of being critical.

What Clinton is doing suggests (note I didn't say PROVES ... there is a difference) that she is engaging in the sort of politics that annoys me to death. The feeling I get after reading the "Fact Hub" at Hillary's site is a feeling of disappointment, despair, frustration, ill-will, and anger. Why would anyone want to vote for a president who treats others this way?

Seriously, I'm asking.

Posted by: Ben from TN | December 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

TO: bethany

What are you talking about? She is a foul person! Forget about her political affiliation for a moment. She let her husband cheat on her and she stayed with him because of the power/money. She is so far left she is turning right. She knows that her husband is a known cheater and liar. Yet she stays with him. Hmmmm! Something is wrong with that picture. She supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now she is against it because we have lost a little over 3000 troops. Hell, loosing 3000 troops in one day was acceptable in Vietnam. All I am saying is, look at the true person you are defending not the politician.

Posted by: NoSoup4U | December 3, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Edwards crossed the line when they started using republican talking points to attack Hillary.

Posted by: JimK | December 3, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a total fool for attacking the way she did. The spin that came out of the last "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message: I wanted the nomination, but college students in Iowa might stop me so I am going to have some fun with attacking my opponents character. He's a liar--he said he didn't plan on running for President, but did you know that he wrote a kindergarten essay that said that he wanted to be President? Obama's been a liar since he was five."

And this comes from the "experienced" candidate? It's more like something you would in a campaign for kindergarten class president. Further, it just plays right into Obama's "different kind of campaign." All Obama has to do is say, "I don't think attacking people is fun, so I am going to talk about something you may have heard of--important issues, like the war in Iraq."

The amateur hour at the Clinton campaign is stunning. The last thing you do after you get a poll that shows you're falling behind because people don't like you is attack somebody's "character" and call it "fun." This is Clinton's version of the Dean scream. The nomination is down to Obama, Edwards, and Richardson now. I don't know who will win.

Posted by: Neither is My Horse | December 3, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

i think it is very convenient that when Obama and other democratic politicians take snyde, back handed shots at Clinton, no one flinches, but the moment she starts to retaliate, everyone scolds her for it. I think many democrats that are for Obama or other candidates are just fishing for reasons to criticize her.

Posted by: bethany | December 3, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a pathological lier just like her husband. Does she want us to forget her hubby almost got impeached,that he lied openly to the American public, he lied under oath, and he is the first disbarred lawyer to hold the office of President. Is she capable of the same sins... You bet yah, she supported him through his ordeal and her quest for power is the only thing that keeps them together, it certainly is not self respect!

Posted by: Dave Lewis | December 3, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The real Hillary is emerging and the campaign "makeover" is evaporating. It's so hard to change stripes.

Posted by: M. Kuntz | December 3, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: S MAN | December 3, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of all the "He Said, She Said" or "He Did, She Did". I want a real leader in the White House. One that doesn't need to smear their opponents name in order for them to gain a lead.

To hell with the politics. Truth is good policy. Honesty is even better. There is no way I would get drawn into the name calling if I were a candidate. I would address the issues of the nation. Every time my opponent tried to talk about me or my family, I would look them squarely in the eye and say, "Thank you for your opinion. Americans have theirs' about you."

GIVE ME A LEADER!!! I don't want an Anti-Gun Activist, A Pro-Gay Activist, or any activist at all. There are many things I support but, I am not an activist. Being an activist doesn't automatically make you a good leader.

Dedication, Motivation, Critical Thinking, Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility, and Morals is what makes a leader. A person that can be compassionate and strict at the same time. One that steps down from the pedestal to be beside me and my fellow Americans. One that doesn't use their race or gender to win a political seat in any level of government. An individual who doesn't try to push their beliefs on me.

I lean toward Republican Views but, I am an Independent. I believe in our Constitution! I support that which many have died to protect. GIVE ME A LEADER! GIVE ME A LEADER! GIVE ME A LEADER!

Posted by: NoSoup4U | December 3, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has no business attacking someone's character with a husband like that. She is ridiculous. If she wins the nomination, this will be the first year I vote Republican.

Posted by: Laurel | December 3, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I think there is so much negativity in the terribly biased media about Clinton, that it becomes a feeding frenzy when she decides to stop rolling over and playing dead to Obama's attacks. Ok, so its alright for Obama to attack or for Edwards to attack her, but its NOT ok for her to respond back in kind? Boys and Girls, wake up and be fair for ONCE, and more imortantly, like Hillary says, the REAL issues are with the policies the current administration has in place. NOT with what she proposes or can do for the country. Let's stop smear attacks -please.

Posted by: KK | December 3, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Starting several years ago I was of the oppinion that Hillary Clinton would be the one candidate that the Democrats could nominate, who could actually lose to a republican. I don't have anything against her personally, but she symbolizes to the right all that is bad about the democratic party. She is probably the most polarizing figure that the Democrats have.

Obama seems honest, and it would be nice to see some racial diversity in the white house, after 230 years. Campaigning always seems to come down to negative comments, I suspect because the candidates don't have any substantial differences that they could use to their advantage. I think these family dynasties are really unhealthy for our democracy. We want to see as much diversity as possible but instead we are seeing the Kennedys, Bushes, and now Clintons. If the past 25 years have taught us anything it should have been that we need something very different than what we have been getting.

Posted by: captbilly | December 3, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I am sick of all the "He Said, She Said" or "He Did, She Did". I want a real leader in the White House. One that doesn't need to smear their opponents name in order for them to gain a lead.

To hell with the politics. Truth is good policy. Honesty is even better. There is no way I would get drawn into the name calling if I were a candidate. I would address the issues of the nation. Every time my opponent tried to talk about me or my family, I would look them squarely in the eye and say, "Thank you for your opinion. Americans have theirs' about you."

GIVE ME A LEADER!!! I don't want an Anti-Gun Activist, A Pro-Gay Activist, or any activist at all. There are many things I support but, I am not an activist. Being an activist doesn't automatically make you a good leader.

Dedication, Motivation, Critical Thinking, Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility, and Morals is what makes a leader. A person that can be compassionate and strict at the same time. One that steps down from the pedestal to be beside me and my fellow Americans. One that doesn't use their race or gender to win a political seat in any level of government. An individual who doesn't try to push their beliefs on me.

I lean toward Republican Views but, I am an Independent. I believe in our Constitution! I support that which many have died to protect. GIVE ME A LEADER! GIVE ME A LEADER! GIVE ME A LEADER!

Posted by: NoSoup4u | December 3, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The question that I have about the both parties primary race is why are the smaller midwestern and eastern states in the Union electing our polititians by being the first in the primaries. California, New York, New Jersey, Pennssylvania should go first in the primaries. The question is more important to the democrats as these are primarily democratic States. Obama will get run over in these states. Hillary will be the parties ultimate nominee. Obama if he wants will get a cabinet post, but he will probable decline it.

Posted by: anonomous | December 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

i like her. Its that simple. If McCain doesn't make the Republican candidate, I will vote for her.

Posted by: jb brown | December 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I would like to know where spike gets the idea that Iowa is a state full of hicks. Last I knew Iowa had one of the highest scores on various testing methods used to compare students nationwide. I wonder where he is from?

Posted by: bf | December 3, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary questioning another's character? Hillary has officially jumped the shark!

Posted by: phil | December 3, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I wound never vote for Hillary eeven if she knew 100% of the issues. Which she doesn't. People hate her for the way she comes off. Pomopus, obnoxious, too confident. Just watch her performance with Katy Couric, or other reporters when asked if She's thought of the possibility of loosing.
Hillary thinks it's already a foregone conclusion She's going to win. The polls and the people say otherwise.
But keep decieving yourself Hillary. Keep being nasty. Keep digging up lies and dirt about your main opponents. Keep on with the underhanded tricks. IN a word, keep on being yourself.
And all your chances will blow up in your face. You loose Hillary!!

Posted by: Kenjiro Honda | December 3, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why politicians throw dirt. It reminds me of high school, cheapens them, and makes me think they can't stand on their actual political beliefs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He's trying to win based on ideas, not by putting down the competition.

Posted by: Neil5585 | December 3, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

how could anyone vote for hillary when she accepted 800,000 from a felon ,and hired a felon. it appears she wants to the first women president no matter the cost.

Posted by: buddy | December 3, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Clinton ought to ask herself WHY Obama is starting to surge...maybe because he comes across as a civilized human being who hasn't been pursuing a scorched-earth campaign policy like Clinton, Romney and Giuliani? Well, go ahead, girl, blast away. It won't make me like you any better, or trust you. This female Democrat senior citizen won't be voting for Hillary, even though her ascension is almost a given, and if the Rethuglicans keep on track to nominate a Mormon fascist or an Italian fascist, I won't be voting in the Presidential race; there will be plenty of other races and issues on the Ohio ballot for me to vote on but I refuse to waste a Presidential ballot on anyone not fit to serve.

Posted by: windrider | December 3, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was named one of the "100 [or] 300 Top/ Most Influential Attorneys in the USA" while her husband was still Arkansas Governor; Hillary was on the WalMart board of Directors for some years.... Hillary's a capitalist all the way.... Hillary's my gal.... not a productive day... LMAO

Posted by: gerald clough | December 3, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm perhaps this slander comes from an inferior mind? Hilary please try to win through political prowess, not lies. If you realize anything about this war of words, we WILL see you fall clinton.

Posted by: V~I~P | December 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

The liberal media wants to face ANYONE but Dr. Ron Paul. Much as we'd like politics to be positive, it is in fact ruled almost entirely by negatives. For instance, what's the biggest negative the Republican Party is facing in 2008? Iraq - a staggering 70% of people favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Who is the only candidate that doesn't have that negative? Dr. Paul, who advocates using those trillions of dollars to secure our border (perhaps against Saudis who were 20 of the 24 terrorists in 9/11) and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is far more worrying than the loss of Social Security. Hm, full employment, withdrawl from Iraq and a huge boost to our economy from rebuilding our infrastructure - what Democrat wants to run against that. Hence the behavior of known liberal biased network CNN, who wants us to nominate either Guiliani or Romney - both of whose negatives are so high the copy practically writes itself!

Posted by: Louis Nardozi | December 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

this whole issue has gone way out of control. also dude ur a dick and that's to refreshing to see in the media, somebody needs to be a dick and glenn beck and bill oreily aren't really doing it well. anywho hilary needs to get her act together and quick she's attacking because she's losing and that is only digging her into a deeper whole. if they're going to be democrats discuss issues not personalities and that is my two cents

Posted by: Jordan Boggs | December 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

what a wonderful couple, bill and hillary. they have not done a single day of productive work yet always take advantage of people, pretend to be a savior of this country. give me break

Posted by: ihk88 | December 3, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company