Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:40 PM ET, 02/14/2008

Obama's 'backroom deal'?

By Michael Dobbs

Clearing up nuclear waste

"Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."
--Hillary Clinton, ABC-Politico Forum, Feb. 11, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has leveled a serious charge against Barack Obama, her colleague on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. During the ABC-Politico forum earlier this week, she suggested that Obama "cut some deals" on nuclear regulatory legislation with the Exelon company of Illinois, a major nuclear power operator. She implied that the backroom "deal" was somehow connected to contributions to the Obama campaign from Exelon.

Both the Obama campaign and Exelon strongly deny these charges, while acknowledging "contacts" between Obama staffers and Exelon officials on the nuclear bill. For the record, Obama has not received any corporate contributions from Exelon. But senior Exelon executives have contributed more than $160,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and $46,000 to his 2004 Senate run.

So what is going on here?

The Facts

Local residents and environmental groups have long complained about unreported releases of radioactive water from Exelon-operated plants in Illinois. Their fears were confirmed in December 2005 when Exelon revealed that more than six million gallons of waste water containing low levels of radioactive tritium had been released from the Braidwood nuclear plant in Braceville, Il., 60 miles south-west of Chicago, in 1996, 1998, and 2000, without the public being informed. The County attorney later accused Exelon of "callous disregard" for public health and safety.

On January 1, 2006, Obama introduced a bill, S. 2348, to help allay the concerns of Illinois citizens. The original draft of the legislation required nuclear plant operators to "immediately notify" local communities of any "unplanned release" of radioactive substances in excess of federal limits. The legislation was subsequently modified in committee over the objections of some environmental activists. The new draft shifted responsibility for drafting the regulations away from Congress itself to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the goverment's nuclear watchdog. Both drafts are available here.

The chief Exelon lobbyist on the Obama bill was David C. Brown. He told me that Exelon supported the "spirit" of the Obama legislation, in contrast to some other nuclear operators, who opposed more regulation of the industry. Nevertheless, Exelon had some "concerns" about the way the legislation was written. For example, the company felt that the phrase "immediately notify" should be changed to "within 24 hours," and that small spills on plant premises should be exempted from the reporting requirement.

Brown says that he met with the Obama staffer responsible for the notification legislation, Todd Atkinson, half a dozen times between January and June 2006, while the bill was being considered by the Senate environment committee. In addition, he helped arrange a five-minute meeting between Exelon CEO (and Obama contributor) John W. Rowe and Senator Obama outside a Senate hearing room on March 29, at which the bill was briefly discussed.

As Brown remembers this conversation, Rowe told Obama that he supported his bill, but that the company had some concerns about the language. According to Brown, Obama replied, "Fine, work with Todd."

Over the next four months, according to a timeline drawn up by Exelon, Brown had a series of meetings with Atkinson (on May 12, May 25, and June 21), as well as staffers for the GOP majority and Democratic minority on the Environment Committee. An e-mail provided by the Obama campaign shows that the committee chairman, James M. Inhofe (R-OK), favored rewriting portions of the bill to reflect the concerns of Exelon and other nuclear operators. In May, Obama put a temporary hold on a Bush administration appointee to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because he was unsatisfied with his answers on the notification issue.

Although Obama had initially introduced the legislation, Inhofe had the decisive say on whether it would move forward. Two other Democratic senators on the committee, Barbara Boxer (CA), and Richard Durbin (IL), said that Obama had little choice except to go along with Inhofe, in order to keep his legislation alive. Both scoffed at Clinton's claims of a "backroom deal" between Obama and Exelon.

"The choice came down to no bill or a weaker bill," said Boxer, who said she is "neutral" in the presidential campaign. "Barack tried desperately to get it through, but got the best thing he could."

When the revised bill was introduced on September 13, it met with unanimous consent. Senator Clinton issued a press release hailing "this important legislation," saying that it would ensure that the public received "prompt notification" of future leaks at nuclear reactors. On September 25, she signed on as a co-sponsor of the revised bill.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to several e-mail messages and telephone calls. The campaign website cites a Feb. 3, 2008 New York Times article as the source for the senator's claims about a backroom deal between Obama and Exelon. No other member of the committee has come forward to support the Clinton version of events.

The revised bill never made it to the Senate floor in 2006, and was effectively shelved in last-minute partisan maneuvering. Obama re-introduced similarly worded legislation in October 2007, but it has not gone anywhere. In the meantime, the industry has agreed to more stringent voluntary guidelines for reporting radioactive releases.

An Exelon spokesman, Craig Nesbitt, said that Obama had "never done anything legislatively that has provided any benefit to this company."

The Pinocchio Test

Obama has exaggerated his legislative accomplishments on the campaign trail. He misspoke last December when he told Iowa voters that he had "passed" a nuclear notification bill. There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked about his dealings with senior Exelon executives, who have poured large sums of money into his campaign.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has failed to provide evidence to support the New York senator's claim of a secret deal between Obama and the nuclear power plant operator "to protect them from full disclosure." Exelon lobbied Obama over the nuclear notification bill, but it expressed the same concerns to other senators. Had Obama not agreed to the drafting changes, the bill would almost certainly have been blocked by the Republican majority on the Environment Committee.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | February 14, 2008; 6:40 PM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Environment  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Measuring the "Obama effect"
Next: Obama's 'Weatherman' Connection


The first thing dishonest lawyers do is call their opponent dishonest. Works on the campaign trail, too.

Posted by: mdore1 | February 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

No shortage of accusations and innuendo from Camp Clinton now that Hillary sees it slipping away. When Obama was down, he remained upbeat and positive. Do we really want to be represented by someone whose natural instinct is to see enemies everywhere and lash out?

Posted by: gmundenat | February 14, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Eeeew. Hillary should focus on stirring the passion of the people, not lose her time on VERY shaky claims about encounters between Obama and lobbyist for the simple reason that all senators meet often with lobbyist, ranging from corporate representative to public concern groups. Clinton included.

Posted by: Hervé Sibomana | February 14, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Now Hillary and Bill are resorting to false accusations against Senator Obama. The sad thing is the accusations can be easily verified. Poor Hillary and Bill, they see the future. Both will be rejected by the Democratic convention and both will be forced to live with each other. Bill in New York and Hillary in Washington DC off of Mass. Ave. NW near the Italian Embassy. That will be as close to each other as their divorce lawyers will permit.

Posted by: NewEra | February 14, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

The article seems to strive for the balance more than the truth. When Senators who are ardently pro-environment such as Barbara Boxer are giving you the straight facts on what happened, you still have given Clinton's version which is merely an allegation more weight.

This journalistic fact check is at best an average cheap shot.

Posted by: bharath | February 14, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow! What a total b!tch.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 14, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse


Take the high road. Stay positive...Change minds - don't confirm the worst fears of those that sit on the fence. The dirtier you campaign, the better he looks...

Posted by: amstaur | February 14, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Typical Clinton slime. Exelon also gave $230000 to her chief strategist Mark Penn, and Clinton was a co-sponsor on this very bill (see: NYTimes blog The Caucus). She will truly say anything to win.

Posted by: Nissl | February 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The article says:

The chief Exelon lobbyist on the Obama bill was David C. Brown. He told me that Exelon supported the "spirit" of the Obama legislation, in contrast to some other nuclear operators, who opposed more regulation of the industry.

Brown says that he met with the Obama staffer responsible for the notification legislation, Todd Atkinson, half a dozen times between January and June 2006, while the bill was being considered by the Senate environment committee.

In addition, he helped arrange a five-minute meeting between Exelon CEO (and Obama contributor) John W. Rowe and Senator Obama outside a Senate hearing room on March 29, at which the bill was briefly discussed.

As Brown remembers this conversation, Rowe told Obama that he supported his bill, but that the company had some concerns about the language. According to Brown, Obama replied, "Fine, work with Todd."

For the record, Obama has not received any corporate contributions from Exelon. But senior Exelon executives have contributed more than $160,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and $46,000 to his 2004 Senate run.

I say: This sounds like Obama is one of the same old insiders in Washington doing the same old thing and expecting a different result.

Obama claims to want to "change" things in Washington, to eliminate lobbyists from influencing legislation.

Obama had legislation passed so that lobbyists couldn't buy lunch for congress people who was sitting down, only ones that were standing up.

Is that what Obama means when he says one stood up, then another stood up, and then they all stood up? gw.

Posted by: | February 14, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I think she should go straight for his throat, he hasn't answered a direct question on his own conduct or decisive actions as of yet. He has not be vetted at all. He votes "present" and gives excuses everywhere but to lay blame with himself. I am glad she brought this to the forefront. He SHOULD BE scrutinized, especially with the critical condition our country is in. All the Obamabots need to quiet down and let them duke it out, there is a lot at stake and I want to see what this guy is really made of. He doesn't walk on water, although he would have you think otherwise. I can't wait to see him grilled at the debate. I vote in March, GO HILLARY 2008! Maybe then we will have healthcare that works for everybody.

Posted by: Fobamaman | February 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Well they murdered someone that was about to break some important stuff on these tww. Lets re-open that crap on them. We all knew they dd it but he was the President.


Posted by: MsRita | February 14, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

A back room deal? I think Hillary is well qualified to recognize back room deals for her husband has taught her about back room deals like Monica who was a child under Bill was a backroom deal. Paula Jones an employee of the state of Arkansas when he was governor now that was a back room deal. Jennifer Flowers that was a georgeous back room deal. Mrs Kathleen Wily was quite a back room deal. Her marriage to Bill make her an expeert on contamination as Bill contaminated their marriage. Hillary didn't make a big public issue of Bill contaminating their marriage but she want to bust this fine young man about a contamination issue. In the words of Bill Clinton "give me a break this is the big fairy tale" I can't remember did Jesse Jackson do that?

Posted by: drwacklin | February 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

You people are just woman-haters. Since when are facts more important than a clear talk from Hillary?

Posted by: bo7fun | February 14, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

OH OBAMA IS SOOOOOOOOOO PERFECT. He is so controlled, it is frightening. Actually, staged and artificial is a better description. It is finally turning around, the lightbulb went off, he has nothing to offer. His chants of change and hope are wearing thin.

Posted by: mjno | February 14, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Mark Penn is the "worldwide CEO of Burson-Marstellar" is linked to the very same Exelon Corp.

Whenever the Clintons level a charge against anyone, you can bet they are in "it" higher and deeper than anyone else.

The FactChecker could enjoy some R&R if he'd just write "Clinton = LIES"

Posted by: Jade7243 | February 14, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Nothing in the article should surprise anyone.The media has no pursued the truth about the young man. His race means nothing to me. His experience and skeletons must be exposed YESTERDAY.For those of us who are old enough to remember Martin Luther we recognize his mode of campaigning.Don't fall prey to any senator who claims he will change the system.

Posted by: Dick Hemmert | February 14, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Well Hillary says she is going to change the system, so I guess you are talking about her. She does stand for CHANGE.

What's bad about CHANGE?

Posted by: I want to be head | February 15, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are shamless power mongers. Twisting the truth back on itself until it slithers away like a cowardice lie. Take note: History marks the decline of great civilizations when men are too weak to lead and women are free to take the reigns of power like Margaret Thatcher-- who did nothing to slow Great Britain's steady decline, or Cleopatra who flirted her way to the final decline of Ptolemaic Egypt. Give me one instance where a woman's hand lifted a great nation to enhanced prominence? I'm waiting ...

Posted by: Draper | February 15, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's should be the absolute last people to sling mud considering their well earned reputation for fraud and scandal. I wonder what Bill's been doing to earn that $50 million the past few years? Kazak Uranium deals, selling pardons, pardoning terrorists, Chinese businessmen, cattle shares etc, etc, etc. If there's dirt to be found in DC, those two won't be far from it.

She's lucky Obama is too nice a guy to take her down on all the skeletons (literally and figuratively) in her closet. This isn't even the pot calling the kettle anything. This is a desperate pol making random accusations to distract the public.

Posted by: Courtney H | February 15, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

"Give me one instance where a woman's hand lifted a great nation to enhanced prominence? I'm waiting ... "

um ... Queen Elizabeth I, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Corazon Aquino . . .

Posted by: mbgoldst | February 15, 2008 5:11 AM | Report abuse

This seems relevant but what do I know.

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon.

Posted by: Obamanation | February 15, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

Just another dirty tactic used by the Clintons to try to stop the momentum of Barack Obama.

The Clintons had the chance to knock him off the high road he was on and they wrote him off. Democratic Primary/Caucus voters are writing off the leaders of the past 15 years and Hill and Bill do not know how to handle it.

Dirty fighters never really win.

Posted by: Manny S. | February 15, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

So Clinton's source is a NYTimes story and you're giving her two Pinocchios? Seems to me you should have contacted the Times reporter since that's her source.

Here's the relevant quote from the Times story which you "overlooked" in giving Hillary two Pinocchios:

"Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

"A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks...."

I recommend everyone here to skip this drek and go read the NYTimes story. Exelon is based in Illinois, and gave "at least $227,000" to Obama's U.S. Senate and presidential campaigns, so you've got to take care of your big biz contributor, including taking the teeth out of legislation, making mandatory reporting voluntary instead. How very convenient for Exelon.

Frank M. Clark, executive vice president to Exelon, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director there, are among Obama's largest fund-raisers, according to the Times. John W. Rowe, also an Obama contributor, is chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is -- get ready for it -- the nuclear power industry's lobbying group.

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. So both of them have ties to the company.

Posted by: cab91 | February 15, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has decided she can only win by using lies to tear down her opponent. This is reprehensible, especially since he has refused to do the same. I won't list them here, but there are MANY high profile Clinton scandals that Obama HAS NOT played to his advantage. The losses of Ted Kennedy in 80 and John Kerry in 2004 both proved that old played out scandals have a way of popping up again. Obama has turned his back on the politics of slander. Why has Clinton not done the same? Because she does not really want the game to change. Plain and Simple.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Let's copy a very important part of this article:

Although Obama had initially introduced the legislation, Inhofe had the decisive say on whether it would move forward. Two other Democratic senators on the committee, Barbara Boxer (CA), and Richard Durbin (IL), said that Obama had little choice except to go along with Inhofe, in order to keep his legislation alive. Both scoffed at Clinton's claims of a "backroom deal" between Obama and Exelon.

"The choice came down to no bill or a weaker bill," said Boxer, who said she is "neutral" in the presidential campaign. "Barack tried desperately to get it through, but got the best thing he could."

When the revised bill was introduced on September 13, it met with unanimous consent. Senator Clinton issued a press release hailing "this important legislation," saying that it would ensure that the public received "prompt notification" of future leaks at nuclear reactors. On September 25, she signed on as a co-sponsor of the revised bill.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 15, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

No one is saying Obama's perfect, mjno, least likely the candidate himself. But he's a far cry better than Hillary.

As for your "present" vote smear, dani, why don't you actually educate yourself about why those present votes were cast? For starters, you could check out Planned Parenthood of IL's statements on Obama's votes in this regard.

And if Hillary needs to do her own back-room arm twisting to get super-delegates to put her over the top at the convention, or to unfairly attempt to seat MI's and FL's delegates, then she'll reveal herself to be even more of a hypocrite than most of the country apparently believes her to be. If you want to guarantee a President McCain, by all means support Hillary.

Posted by: elroy1 | February 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

It is pretty sad that Hillary has to go this round against Obama. If Obama chooses to steep this low, Hillary by far has the most dirt.

Posted by: SilverSpring | February 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

You people are just woman-haters. Since when are facts more important than a clear talk from Hillary?

Posted by: bo7fun | February 14, 2008 10:47 PM


Did you read the same piece as I did? Clinton was the one who called it a backroom deal. Yet, had no problem signing on as a co-sponsor of the revised bill.

Why is it that many of the Hillary teat-mongers only see anti-Clintonian comments as sexist attacks? I do not believe I have seen ANY comment that says, "I won't vote for her because she is a woman", or anything near as such.

This is not a debate based on sex, so stop trying to turn it into one.


Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

In the face of Hillary's substantial leads in OH & TX, she and her campaign have decided to see if they can deliver OH & TX to Obama wrapped in a bow. They haven't realized that most people see through these political tactics of the past.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Looks like some of you were not reading Harper's Magazine in 2006, since they ran a very large story called "Barack Obama, Inc." by Ken Silverstein. The Exelon connections surfaced there--not with Hillary Clinton. At the time of the article, St Barack the Divine was not a candidate--just a self important magazine cover model. Before some of you speak out of your rear ends on this subject, then you might want to go read the article.

Posted by: JS | February 15, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton's must think the blue collar workers they view as their bread and butter aren't bright enough to see through this type of thing. I don't believe that's true.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse


Before you begin referring articles about Obama, remember that there is a library full of articles about the Clinton's immoral, unethical, and downright sleazy behavior. This is NOT a winning strategy for her.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Seems like you forgot a key part of this little dustup. I'm sure it was just an HONEST oversight. Really. I mean that.

You forgot to mention that Obama has bragged about passing this bill which you say never passed at all.

In an Iowa speech in December, Obama bragged that this bill was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed. I just did that last year."

So, did the bill pass or did it not? It can't be both as much as you would like it to be.

I think the Post and Obama both deserve three pinnochios for this . . . and let's add one more to the Post's total for their barely disguised bias.

Posted by: Barry Peirson | February 15, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

iowatreasure, you just make me LOLLOLLOL!!! Did you read the whole article or you just selectively cut and paste stuff that supports your imaginations. Hillary got two pinnochios for material misstatement of the facts! Americans are realizing that this woman and her husband will say and do anything to win. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is beneath them. Pathetic, the Clintons are!!

Posted by: Mel | February 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

The NY Times story certainly implied that
Obama watered down the bill after Excelon objected. At best, he caved to pressure from Senate Republicans. How reassuring.

Posted by: Readthestory | February 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

"You people are just woman-haters. Since when are facts more important than a clear talk from Hillary?"

Posted by: bo7fun | February 14, 2008 10:47 PM

And what do you mean by "you people". Be careful because the "you people" phrase has sunk more campaigns than you can imagine (ask Perot, Allen, etc.). Clear talk and Hillary in the same sentence is indeed an contradiction. Hillary and her varying surrogates are the paradigms of doublespeak and probably have memorized the first draft of "A Clockwork Orange." And yes, there is that crazy rabbit in "Alice in Wonderland" where nothing meant what it meant. Is that the "clear talk" to which you refer? If not, see Obama.

Posted by: Mel | February 15, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

People that think Obama is not a dirty politician forget the phrase, "How do you think I got here, on my good looks?"

Posted by: joseph | February 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Read, the NY Times IMPLIED that, because the NY Times has become a paper that relies on journalists who feel very comfortable making up any information they might lack in a story. At one time they were one of the only news outlets in which it was reasonable to place one's faith that the articles were accurate. They've managed to lose that.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Comparing the lifetime of immoral, unethical, and sleazy behavior of the Clinton's with anything Obama may have done is simply hilarious.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Here we go again, the politics of old! Step aside and let a LEADER lead this counry into the future. People are born leaders something that Hillary didn't get at birth.

Posted by: Chelu | February 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Nothing compared to what the Repubs would bring out in the general election should Obama be the Dem candidate. Smearing sometimes works,(remember Swift Boat Veterans and the TV ads portraying wounded & decorated Vietnam Vet Max Cleland as practically a budy of Osama Bin Ladn?). And it is true that Obama has exaggerated his accomplishments (s.o.p.) and relied more on grand rhetoric than specifics. He better get used to a tough campaign.

Posted by: Steve | February 15, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Well the nerve of her! She forgot she is a star on

Check out:

The shocking video Hillary does not want you to see.

Posted by: Marion | February 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

It has worked in the past, no question. But, when the demographics of the electorate shift as substantially as they have during this primary/caucus season, it is important to recognize that voters have become MUCH MORE savvy about this sort of thing. Younger voters are more skeptical than their parents or grandparents were and the older segments of the Democratic electorate remember the swift boat attack and CERTAINLY don't want to see it withint he party.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Naturally, if there was any wrong-doing, we should know about it. However where is the smoking gun? I think this is just some last ditch efforts to save Texas for Hillary.

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:

Posted by: Dave | February 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama is also a star on youtube, check this out: Google "Larry Sinclair and Obama".

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I think that it is good for Hillary Clinton to bring out the big guns against Obama. If the man has nothing to hide, which, so far, at least, it seems he doesn't, then good enough.
I'm an Obamacrat. What I mean by that is that I'm a progressive independent that refuses to swear allegiance to any party.
The reason for that is when one identifies oneself as a Democrat, it conjures up visions in people's minds of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman. I have no desire to be associated with them. My lack of party allegiance allows me complete freedom to call a snake a snake. The Democrats will have my vote consistently as they prove to be valiantly progressive, consistently.
Senator Clinton is not fooling any body. Quite frankly, she is embarrassing herself and the voters of New York. My advice to her and hers is to stick to the issues. If it be found that there is no real substantive difference between these candidates on the issues (I for one believe there are important differences), then the decision comes down to character by itself.
One does not have to wait around long for Clinton to give an example of bad judgement and a, usually resultant, lack of character.
When the first Clinton championed NAFTA, so did she. Her judgement was wrong. But instead of admitting openly that it was so, she acts as if she were against it since its inception by an evil republican majority in the 90's. Lack of character.
When trusted by the people of New York to represent them in the Senate, she voted to hand Congress' war power to a young and untested president based on appearently shoddy intelligence. This was bad judgement. Has she admitted this. No. Yet she speaks as if the president voted himself unprecedented powers that belong to the Congress. He did not. The Senate did. And she was in the majority. Lack of character.
In a less important move, she figured she was a shoe in for the Democratic nomination. This primary has shown that this was bad judgement. Has she searched her sole for an answer to why the people did not perceive the inevitibility that she did. No. She has decided once again to take the low road. She accuses a man of something that she knows not to be true. Lack of character.

What I will say next will rub some people the wrong way. Please, hear me out. It is not my intention to take cheap shots.
The Republican Congress of the 90's did something that was reprehensible. They improperly used their power to pry into a Presidents private life. That said, when faced with the reality of Congressional prying, Bill Clinton denounced it as partisan dirty tricks. He was right. However, his denouncement was in vain. Though it was unjust, he ended up in front of a Grand Jury. He could have manned-up and took his licks. He didn't. Instead, he, the Chief Magistrate, purjured himself. Lack of character.
When on the campaign trail Bill Clinton famously said that he never inhaled. I always thought that that was curious. Either he was lying to the public or he didn't have the guts to stand up to peer pressure and just tell his buddies he didn't want to smoke. Lack of character.

My simple point is that birds of a feather flock together. I would not be able to respect my wife if she were an habitual distorter of the truth. I imagine she could not respect me if the opposite were true. My wife lets me know when I act without character and I try to return the favor. We keep each other on the straight and narrow. The Clintons can't help but travel the crooked and wide path of convenient truth. Just because a person has once roamed the halls of the White House does not mean that they deserved to be there. It certainly does not mean that they can be trusted. And it definitely does not mean that there spouse deserves a shot.

Posted by: JPHemingway | February 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

TO JPHEMMINGWAY: I am guessing you haven't read the chicago sun times and tribune yet "Obama and Rezko" oh and the article in "Obama 1996 IVI IPO Questionnaire"

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Would you respect your wife if she continues to lie about taking drugs. Google: Larry Sinclair and Obama

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

What sleaze. This latest smear is classic Bush-Rove politics - make an assertion that hints at wrongdoing through innuendo without providing substantive factual support, then hope the masses bite. I am sick and tired of this smoke and mirror nonsense. Why can't politicians stand on the weight of their messages rather than trying to create false perceptions of their political opponents. This is the greatest sign to date of how truly weak the Clintons are. There is no doubt that they will say anything to win. The bar has been set so low.

Even the fact checker had to fein balance by including Clinton spin vs. the facts. I just hope America sees through it.

Posted by: clab | February 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse


Although I agree with the majority of what you say about the Clintons, we differ in our interpretation of Bill's scandals. When someone spends a lifetime hiding and lying about infidelity, there is no way that this behavior doesn't spill over into his professional life. If character is important, then this enormous piece of evidence about Bill's character is important as well. And, you're right. If he had an ounce of integrity and true backbone, he would have stepped up and acknowledged his behavior, expressed remorse, and asked for forgiveness. Instead, he takes no responsibility for his behavior. It suggests a pathological level of narcissism.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

True, True, True. I've never been a Clinton fan, but this is on the money. You should live near Exelon. It doesn't matter to you if you're not affected by their dastardly treatment or the increased risk of cancer from the spills. Obama is Illinois senator and did nothing to help. He doesn't have the time of day for us little people.

Posted by: outraged | February 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse


If we want to compare Clinton & Obama articles about immoral, unethical, and sleazy behavior. We'll need a dump truck to bring in the Clinton's load. NOT a winning strategy.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

On a larger scale, what does any of this - the accusation or the rebuttal - matter? Obama has not said that he was not contacted by Exelon. Nor has Clinton said anything untoward or unethical occurred in this instance. That we got a nuclear reporting bill at all is actually a bonus, right? So what harm does this story do to Obama, and how does it help Clinton?

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Outraged, he did everything he could. You might want to thank the Republicans for derailing that legislation.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

By the way. Obama both acknowledged and apologized for the Rezko issue. Have you EVER heard a Clinton ACCEPT responsibility for ANYTHING they have done??? I think we ALL know the answer to that.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

You haven't heard the last of Rezko, his trial is next month. All I am saying is that Obama is no saint.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse


Reread the Sun article. It makes Obama look pretty damned good in comparison to a Clinton.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

If you want to talk about problems with criminals. Take a look at the Clinton's and Enron.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

r.mary - you seem to be grasping at straws if your argument that Obama is no saint (which he has never claimed to be) is that he is somehow connected to Rezko. This whole Rezko thing seems like such a non-starter to me. Obama returned money and apologized. What more do you want? More importantly, what more do you think there is to this story? This dog just won't hunt, I think. If there's something more, something illegal or unethical, behind all this, then fine. But until you can show that Obama did something actually bad, rather than talked to a bad man, I will continue to be unimpressed by cryptic statements like "you haven't heard the last or Rezko." So what?

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

To James: As for your statement on the Clinton's needing a dump truck, just wait until Obama has had the same amount of years that the Clinton's have in politics. I am sure his (Obama's) dump truck would far exceed the Clinton's.
Same thing was said about the earmarks yesterday. Hillary's far exceeded Obama's.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

To Joe: I also want him to return the property as he did the money.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

r.mary - OK. But that doesn't answer my question. So what? Why should we care about this?

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Because people do not realize or have heard much about Obama. We should all care. Now if you don't, fine that is your opinion. I respect yours now respect mine.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse


I'm afraid you are simply being hopeful about Obama. He doesn't possess the same pathologial personalities as the Clintons. It's just not very likely he will engage in as muchimmoral, unethical, and sleazy behavior.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Keep dreaming. I know him. I am from Chicago.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

And r.mary (and others), as many have noted, it's dangerous for Clinton to bring this matter up. I like her, actually, but the reality is that many people think that she's done bad things, and those things are worse than an allegedly slightly advantageous land deal (I wonder, do you even know the terms of the alleged deal?) My real point is, why does this bother you so much, when a lot of other untoward things are linked to the Clintons and others? Isn't this whole "scandal" really a non-starter, and aren't we all better off, as another poster put it, concentrating on the issues? All I want is a Democratic administration. I think either candidate would be a fine president, but I worry that relatively baseless attacks like the Rezko thing and the nuclear thing are hurting the party's unity, which is paramount.

So I ask again - why should I care about Rezko?

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse


And what do you know? What has he done that compares with the Clintons?

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

And r.mary, I respect your opinion, but I'm just asking for some factual support for your accusations.

I am from Chicago, too. I had Obama as a professor. Does that entitle me to a greater opinion than you? I don't think so. I think we all need to support our statements with facts. That we "don't know enough about Obama" is neither here nor there, is it? So what, unless he's done something illegal? In other words, I care, but I want to care about things that are substantiated, rather than simply thrown out there by partisan supporters without any supporting facts. Moreover, if this is what you base your vote on, I'm worried about all of us.

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I'm not saying Obama is perfect, or that he hasn't made mistakes, or that he won't make mistakes in the future. However, I AM saying that it is clear from what can discerned about his personality from everything I've read and seen (which is a substantial amount) that he does not possess a pathological personality. Does this mean is not capable of doing bad things? NO. But, it does mean that he is MUCH LESS LIKELY to behave as the Clintons have.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

If you really, really read the article on him and Rezko then you would know that all of the other dealing with him and Rezko have displaced his own people out of their homes. Do you really think he will care about us? His wife sitting on the Board of the University of Chicago. Did you know that the hospital does not take anyone without insurance and how much of a profit the hospital has made because of this. If Obama really cared he could have used his influence to do something about this. Remember this hospital is in an area with large numbers of african americans.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Desperation is so unattractive....

Posted by: B | February 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Obamabots, please study who you are idolizing before drowning on all his hope and change message. This will truly open your eyes on the great Leader he promises to be. Don't ever ever be fooled by his rock star celebrity. Gives me the creeps to think of President Barack Hussein Obama!
Enjoy and may you all be enlightened. I never have trusted a wolf disguised in sheep's clothing.

Posted by: 4hillary | February 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse


I have worked in the medical field for approx. 20 years. That hospital is NO different than most in this country. It is the primary reason we need to change the way in which we deal with health insurance in this country.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse


This is exactly the type of thing that an increasing number of people in the Democratic party are tired of: Distortions, lies, and innuendos. It's just not a winning strategy. The vast majority of the electorate is far too savvy to believe this stuff in this day and age.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Thank you 4HILLARY.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

OK, again, r.mary. You seem passionate, but I'm trying to figure out why. So his wife is employed by the U of C hospital. Do you know what her position was? She was vice president of community outreach. She was trying to help the local community better understand the nature of the research hospital at the university in order that they could use its services better. In any event, what does her being on the board have to do with the hospital's policies on payment? Find me a hospital that doesn't care about how it's going to get paid by it's patients. I just don't see the connection, nor do I see anything to get worked up about.

You seem to have a problem with people believing in someone, and you want to make him more "real." That's fine, and I think you're right to do that. But saying that "he doesn't care" about Chicago is kind of ridiculous. As a U.S. Senator, he represents the entire state of Illinois. I would bet you that there are plenty of people in New York who think Clinton "doesn't care" about them because she's not there holding their hands 24/7. But is that really a reason to tear someone down?

So what's the root of your dislike of Obama? I think it's fair to want to know him better, but I don't see how your attempts to tear him down help Clinton, who I'm presuming you support. It just seems bitter. If you want to convince me to support Clinton, tell me why she's better, rather than make unsubstantiated claims assaulting someone's character. That helps no one.

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I have read a good deal about the Obama-Rezko business, although, I must say that I haven't heard about Michelle Obama's drug problem. As far as Rezko and Exelon, it's fair game. Let's hear all the dirty details. However, I would place accusations about what Michelle Obama puts in her body into the same category that I place accusations of what Bill Clinton puts into other people's bodies: inappropriate discussion for public debate. In my eyes, Clinton's crime was not his infidelity. That's something that him and H.R.Clinton need to work on themselves. In a nation of laws, however, the top law enforcement official in the nation must not lie in a court of law, no matter how inappropriate the questioning. It shows as much contempt for the law as the people who abused it by starting an investigation like that in the first place.

Now, back to Rezko. My understanding is that Obama, like many other Illinois politicians knows, has worked with, and has taken money from this man. I also understand that BHObama has said that given the revelations of Rezko's activities he now realizes the mistake he made in dealing with him. He has admitted all of his dealings with Rezko and pleadged to give back all contributions. Now, let him do just that. If he does not, he will have proved himself to be of poor character.
Everyone makes mistakes. Obama's decision to deal with Rezko was a mistake. That was poor judgement. The test of character comes when one has to admit, correct, and assume responsibility for one's mistakes. My argument is that when Clinton makes exercizes poor judgement, she simply acts as if she didn't. This is the George Bush syndrome.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that GWBush sent this country to war in Iraq based on what he believed to be credible intelligence. The intelligence was wrong. Now, two possibilities exist. Either he knew the case for war was a lie or he was not capable to see the picture for what it was. The first option proves a lack of integrity. If the second scenario be true, then he compromised his integrity by not admitting his poor judgement. It's one or the other.
The same is true of Clinton's war vote. Either she knew, or suspected, that Bush was off base and voted to give him war power anyway or she believed the president, thereby exercising poor judgement. Again, let us rule out the first option since it would necessarily mean she was with out character. The second shows her mistake and her refusal to admit that mistake shows a lack of character.
Again, politicians, like all of us, should not be held judged guilty for having made bad choices. We should, however, be held accountable. Character is shown by holding yourself accountable; those that lack character dare others to do it.

Posted by: JPHemingway | February 15, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

TO JAMES: I never said that is the only hospital that does. I said if he really cared he could have done something. Not only so that people with no insurance could get care there, but for his own people living around there.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

To James: As for your statement on the Clinton's needing a dump truck, just wait until Obama has had the same amount of years that the Clinton's have in politics. I am sure his (Obama's) dump truck would far exceed the Clinton's.
Same thing was said about the earmarks yesterday. Hillary's far exceeded Obama's.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 10:32 AM

"Just wait until Obama has had the same amount of years that the Clinton's have in politics"

I love the typical Clintonian assumption of a negative future. Instead of defending and debunking the "dump truck" statement, you fiercely attack by foreshadowing a negative future outcome.

In my world, people who do such things and follow the Clintonian attack book to the letter, are called teat-mongers.

Why don't you debunk and dispel, instead of following the Clintonian handbook, by propagating a negative and fatalistic future "wait till..." mentality?

The assumption that all politicians are either now, or will eventually be corrupt, is what Obama is fighting against.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Can we stop this? Can Clinton and Obama duke it out on the who can lead better issue rather than mud-slinging? It only gives heart to the repubs who would otherwise have to defend the most corrupt regime since Grant or Harding,or ever. Whatever the Clintons did is pennyante compared to the Bushists and Obama just hasn't been in the game long enough to run up many questionable practices. Politics is always give and take and some sleaze occurs as a result of the system. Let's decide who can better get us out of Iraq without leaving a worse disaster behind and who can repair the broken middle class as well as nibble away at ghetto poverty.

Posted by: bob tichell | February 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse


A politician does not have the power to force a hospital to do something, when the hospital is acting legally. The Obama's took a reasonable action to attempt to influence the process and decisions of the hospital.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I thought Karl Rove worked for the Republican party.

Posted by: Sara B. | February 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

how depressing. Hillary is looking more and more unlikable with these kinds of unsubstantiated attacks.

Posted by: oscars2212 | February 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

It's okay when Obama levels charges against Hillary, but as soon as Hillary levels a charge against Obama, all start crying foul. Obama supporters get over yourselves. Obama is not any cleaner than anyone else.

Posted by: nord | February 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

It's rather amazing that her campaign is quite literally filled with brilliant people who seem to share an inability to learn that the political tactics they grew up with are counterproductive in the current political zeitgeist.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Nord, that is exactly what I have been saying all along until they wanted facts. When I gave it to him they start to defend it without facts.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

What a load. Mark Penn, Hillary's chief strategist, is on the Exelon payroll. Exelon hired his PR firm to represent them in polishing the public image of some of the seedier elements of their business. And now they make up this stuff against Obama? Pitiful.

Posted by: maupin1 | February 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Pshaw! Are people surprised at the Clintons? The Clintons are very good at oversimplifying facts? We are still reminded about the Monica Lewinsky's story. We all know Billary's masterful distortion of the fact. No wonder why he was impeached by the Republicans. Woe unto to the Clintons!

Posted by: John F of Iowa City | February 15, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Nord and r.mary.

No one is saying Obama's a saint. He denies such rumors. However, what we're saying is that these attacks are foolish because they detract from the real issues at stake here, as bob mitchell points out.

Interestingly, no one is attacking Clinton, as you claim, but rather asking Obama's detractors for some factual support for their claims. I don't see what's wrong with that. And r.mary, you still haven't provided facts. Just assertions.

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I am confused- were to 2 pinnochios given to the Clinton version of what happened or to Obama's version?

Posted by: Rosemary G. | February 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Let me revise, because I mispoke. I'M not attacking Clinton. I just want to know why you all seem to hate Obama so much? I'm voting Dem either way, but I don't like seeing unsubstantiated attacks by our own party for reasons that are unexplained.

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm... I think this should be one pinocchio for Barack and two or three for Hillary, considering that she fails to mention Mark Penn's HUGE ties to the very same company, Exelon.

See for yourself...

Posted by: TMo | February 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

You dems crack me up! Where have you been for the last 20+ years regarding the Clintons??? All of a sudden you see them for who they are???? You weren't saying these tings in the 90's. And you Obamabots, WOW, get a grip. I HOPE, I win the lottery! What a country. PS: I trust you liberal dems will be donating your government rebate checks, redistribution of wealth, right? Put your money where your mouth is and give to the less fortunate. LOL

Posted by: tradcon | February 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Who said anyone hated him. Like I said before, you wanted facts, I gave them to you. What I really would hope is that they could work together. Like Hllary President, Obama Vice President or Obama President and Hillary Vice President.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

people in glass houses should not throw stone !!

Posted by: anita | February 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, r.mary, you could have fooled me about your feelings for Obama. Posting links to spurious stories and claiming that he doesn't care about anyone just seemed like detracting him. If this is a new form of flattery, I apologize, but I haven't caught on.

Let's work against those like tradcon who are know-nothings and want to regress the country to the middle-ages.

Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary. Sinking to mud slinging.
We do n need eight more years of lies and innuendos. Hillary should step aside

Posted by: Bismarck3 | February 15, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for your insightful comment. I'm sure that you have won many converts to your point of view by insulting nearly everybody on this stream. Same the simplistic labels and hackneyed slogans for the general election. Republicans, the supposed conservative party, have long accepted the idea that the people, through their government, have some responsibility to the least fortunate of our fellow citizens. The argument between the two parties is usually one of degrees. If a stringent adherence to laisez-faire economic theory is what you seek, allow me to recommend the Libertarian Party. There you will find thoughtful conservatives that fight for their principles without the use of name calling and cheesy rhetoric.

Posted by: JPHemingway | February 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

All of the Obama supporters like those calling this very accomplished woman a b?tch have sickened me. Obama thinks he gets us Clinton supporters but I am a liberal san franciscan who cannot believe t, but I will be sitting out this election if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: Cristine | February 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

More crap from the Hillary camp. Blah.

Posted by: Brian | February 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

No matter the outcome of the democratic race, Obama has, and will continue to show a sense of class the Clintons have never known. To those who challenge his character, I'd argue he's well aware of his own humanity... you simply don't get in Presidential politics without an inflated sense of self. Yet beyond the hype, the arguments here are entirely nefarious, to pass legislation makes you naturally corrupt and to stand back or perhaps vote not present makes you a slug. And, if Obama is a slug we can all ask why Hillary chose to skip out on Tuesday's tele-communications vote... or, does asking a question like this mean I've just woken with another Obama hangover? The part of this equation that no anger or semantics can change is the fact that Obama, whether by choice or character alone, has not descended into a politics of hate and accusation. And this is why a multitude of conservative voters have told me they will vote for Obama. Yet mention the name Hillary and you simply get a McCain victory, come November.

Posted by: montanadem | February 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

R. mary and 4 hillary are trying to convince us that Hillary is going to solve all of our problems.

If she was going to do something with health care why hasn't she changed it while she has been in the Senate?

Why won't she open the books and records when she was first lady?

Why doesn't she disclose her tax returns?
Which would allow us to see what Bill received from this billionaire and their dealings?

Why did she accept monies from persons contributing large sums of money, who turned out to be criminals on the run.

Remember if you lie with dogs, you will wake up with fleas. Maybe she needs a collar?

Posted by: Jack | February 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

To Montadem, in light of what happened yesterday in Dekalb. I believe Obama has voted against a ban on handguns.
Like Anita stated earlier "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The people who hate Obama are just as bad as those who hate Hillary. The hate is almost always irrational and is never based on facts. The Obama haters dislike him because he is "arrogant," "a closet Muslim," "shallow," "corrupt," etc. None of these accusations are ever backed up with facts. If any attempt is made to substantiate an accusation, it is usually based on some form of guilt by association-- e.g., Obama's law firm did work for Rezko, or Rezko made a donation to Obama's campaign, therefore Obama MUST be connected to Rezko's nefarious business dealings. Absurd. An even more ignorant one is the one that claims that Obama is a Manchurian candidate-- anyone with a name (and a face) like that MUST be hiding something. I suppose that the price of success is a corresponding increase in hostility and opposition. Most of the hatred of Hillary is similarly irrational.

Posted by: Ray | February 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

what the matter, Hillary running out of $$, the whiner/crier, so people will feel sorry for her, again. So she goes looking for something on Obama. Look in the mirror at yourself, before you start accusations on someone else.

Well, we have enough bad unsolved cases out there on the Clinton's already. For instance, President/and his gal pals. WHITEGATE?, Vincegate? and screwed up Health care that never got off the ground. Hillary, clear some of this stuff up now.

Posted by: AMF | February 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Although I take your point that extreme reactions are often irrational, the distaste for the behavior of the Clintons is based on a long history of observed behavior.

Posted by: Ray | February 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity - salvation - for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival.

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country - nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."


Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The only thing in this presidential race worse than the Clinton's are the uneducated, even ignorant champions for their cause. Distortions, lies, bigoted verbage and blind eyes to truth. America deserves better than this.

Posted by: Tre | February 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

As a Canadian am well aware this political race drastically affects my country. As a Conservative our party finally won to clear Ottawa's difficulties. As a woman and political, strongly admire Hillary Clinton. She's the very best of all candidates, along with Republican Ron Paul. The major difficulty she encountered was Bill Clinton's ego, causing her campaign to falter and the men! Few men want women as a leader. IF she doesn't win the US is in trouble - even moreso then now. What hasn't been said, there could well be no new President for, when deemed necessary, emergency powers allows for the current President to remain in power. Obama came from no where. ASK WHO steers the Whitehouse should he win? WHO are the men behind him? His oratorial skills are wonderful but without substance! Warm fuzzies not facts. KISS - Keep it simple, stupid. Most people don't really think, or ask questions; until it's too late. The media has a responsible for fairness and demanding truths. Hillary took one network on for unfairness re her daughter. Seemingly Hillary presents a danger to the status quo - or she's not movie star material. Just a woman and mother who wants the world to be a better place, as in "It takes a Village." It's not the party who runs the country but the person and/or the person or persons behind the throne. Thank you.

Posted by: marlene stobbart | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

To Draper:

Queen Elizabeth I of England and Catherine the Great of Russia, to name two.

John Mihelich.

Posted by: John Mihelich | February 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons Pinocchio nose is So-oo-oo-oo long that hopefully soon it will be
So Long! to the Clinton campaign for president.

Posted by: MlJohnston | February 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse


You need to look to the primary source , this isn't the NY Times.

It requires a Republican like Krauthammer to ignore the importance of hope for individuals on the edge of the economy, unemployed, or underemployed. And for how important this can be to inspiring individual and community action to create a strong foundation for policy changes to have the greatest impact on the economy.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Another lie by Clinton comes out. Why the hell doesn't she tell the truth once in a while? She is the most ignorant woman for someone who is suppose to be smart. When will she realize that Mr. Obama does not have the shady background that the Clinton's do? There is no comparison on the integrity of Mr. Obama to Clinton. The truth is just not in her. And the people are finding this out the more she talks. I am wondering what is going to happen when Obama takes a big lead. Knowing the Clinton's and how dirty they are, I am sure it will be something big. Why doesn't she just give it up, because "IT IS NOT HER TURN." You don't have a turn to be president.

Posted by: edeerfield | February 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I read the other day how the "Press" is coddling Obama and pouncing on Hillary. I don't find this to be true. Hillary and Bill are desperate at this point, on the verge of losing this thing completely. They will do and say anything, and unfortunately some of their mud will stick.

But my point is I don't think Obama is being coddled; Objectively, he is such an excellent candidate in so many unique and transforming ways, that simply correcting the Clintons' factual errors makes him look good and Hillary look bad.

Finally, I disagree with the sentiment that Obama is all speech and no substance. His policies are thought-out, consistent, with original approaches to long-time Democratic issues. He's not a blowhard; it's not all just empty rhetoric. Got to and read the policy papers, do the wonky work on him and you'll find there's plenty of policy, plenty of detail, and plenty of fascinating political substance.
I admire the Clintons for their service in the 90's. I feel a little sorry for Hillary, she's been aiming for this prize for so long, so many decades, who woulda thunk that the greatest transformational politician since FDR would come out of nowhere and captivate the country. I hope Hillary gets a prime, prime Cabinet spot if she wants it, and I know she will continue to serve the country honorably.

But it's not her time. Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.

Posted by: Vermonter | February 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I certainly don't deny that Clinton isn't in a position to bring stuff like this up given her history, BUT for someone like Obama, whose entire campaign has been run on the premise that he is above this stuff and against this, it makes scared to know what else is unknown out there. Clinton has never pretended to be above this stuff and Obama has, his campaign of hope is all based on lies. Maybe I will be voting for McCain in November.

Posted by: Clint | February 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse


You are really going to make the argument that the Clintons have NEVER PRETENDED to be above this stuff???? I'm open to a reasoned argument about this, but I'm afraid that is a nonsequitor.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed by all your comments. The last election was between the devil I knew and the devil I didn't - so I didn't vote for the first time in my life. For the first time in many years I see a candidate who cares about all the people, not just black or white or red or yellow. This is a person who looks to find common ground and do what is right. This person has impressed me enough through their strength of character and calm demeanor that I will vote for them because I am ready for a change in politics. Mud slinging only confirms my choice.

Posted by: deames | February 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

James are we gonna go through this again?

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

It's a losing strategy, r.mary. If the Clinton's go down this road, they do NOT come out with a win. There is plenty of stuff to reveal about Bill that's happened very recently. The Clinton campaign needs to be prepared to deal with that reality if they are going to sling mud.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse


Are you kidding me? After all the vitriol you have launched against Obama you are now saying you "really would hope they could work together" as President & VP? How disingenous. Furthermore, your exchanges with James have a "my dog is bigger than your dog" tone reminiscent of my grandaugher's kindergarten class. Not very convincing.

Posted by: tcinaz | February 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I still find the whole thing a little to close for comfort. I don't think Obama is all he pretends to be. I think he is as much a Washington Insider as every other politician. For example, of the $890,000 donated to superdelegates' campaigns from Obama and Clinton political action committees, Obama donated 78 percent of that nearly $900k. Hillary's PAC donated the other 22 percent. He is no different than her (and it would seem worse) becaus ehe will do whatever it take sto get elected.

Posted by: zlm1791 | February 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama remains untouched by the media - the Clinton's have no choice but to bring up questions. If anyone has any doubts about the results of giving any candidate a media pass, take a look at the events leading up to the 2000 election. George was a media darling and no one asked the tough questions. We've been paying for our media's refusal to leave up that uniquely American phrase, freedom of the press. Is it all about Obama? Maybe or maybe the Republicans can't wait to bring in the dogs once Obama is annointed. Obama won't know what happened until it's too late. C'mon people, he's a grown up. Let him weigh in. Not Teddy.

Posted by: josie | February 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse


The notion that he is NO DIFFERENT than the Clintons, simply is NOT TRUE.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I wish the Post was as conscientious in reporting in-depth about Hillary as he opponent. Pray tell where is all of the "experience" Billary claims? She claims 35 years of experience. Experience at what? Being an activist, which amounts to being a sidekick at her hubby's election contests, does not compute as experience in my book. Why don't you folks get serious and recite her experiences she claims prepare her for the presidency? And is she prepared to stand-up to Iran? Someone better. They're a coming and we'd better wake up to the fact.

Denny Gilbert, Newark, Ohio

Posted by: Denny Gilbert | February 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I said that all about Obama. All you come up with is to call me disingenous. Now it seems to me you have been spending to much time in that kindergarten class to see the facts of what is going around you.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse


He remains untouched?? Her supporters have posted a series of articles about exactly those things. How is that untouched? If you mean, they haven't found anything of substance, then you're right.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk facts: 1) Obama was not in the Senate when he claims he was against the war and Hillary voted for it, and since he has been, he has voted exactly like she has! 2) Why won't he say the Pledge of Allegiance? Does not bode well for someone who is going to be President! Seems he kind of changes his "stripes" depending on where he is campaigning. Hillary gives her specifics on her plans, and until Obama refused to squelch the "race card" issue, she has remained attacking the Republicans and not Obama. Self-defense is what most Dems fail to do and we have lost before to smart talkers. Look where we are now...

Posted by: Nanu | February 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what you mean by exactly those things. Obama continuously claims being able to get things done, that he can bring together people of disparate beliefs and agendas. If this article is to be believed, Obama got things done the old fashioned way. And didn't get what he asked for, either. I would like to see Obama's detailed plan to address the economic plights that have been brewing for a long, long time. Globalization, fair trade, NAFTA and its unintended consequences. The press should be asking these questions but they are as enamored of the rock star as everyone else. Charisma and personal charm can be great deceivers so I'd like to see a little more fact checking. What did Obama accomplish as a community organizer. Why was he accompanying Louis Farakhan and the Reverend Wright to Libya?

I guess all I'm really asking for is scrutiny. Of both candidates. They are both bought and sold by lobbyists. Edwards stood out in that regard.

Posted by: josie | February 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

To JPHemingway:

I didn't mean to insult, it's just so frustrating. My apologies. Absolutely I believe in government safety-nets for society's most vulnerable.The elderly, disabled, the unborn, children, etc. I also believe that Socialism not freedom. Those that can must take some personal responsibility for their lives. I will give thought to your recommendation. :-)

Posted by: tradcon | February 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse


You're perfectly entitled to not like Obama. I don't care. Please just be consistent. Either he is the dirty politician you have decried in all your previous comments today, or he's a good choice as running mate for Hillary. What is it?

Posted by: tcinaz | February 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse


How old was that link you posted? And the picture it's clear that they look like they were in their early 20's. That link had know value and does not mean anything, the only thing I see is two black folks at a dinner function were it's clear Michele doesn't know anyone at that table or the whole room for that matter and Obam being himself getting along with others. SO WHAT!

And for Rmary it's great that you support Hillary and all, but we are all humans and know one on this earth is with out dirt. But I guess he's just another black man guilty until proving innocent...Huhn!

Posted by: LMAO | February 15, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse


Your "facts" and the distortion of the truth via leaving out the context is exactly what and increasing number of Democrats are getting tired of. These tactics don't work in the current political zeitgeist. As an Obama supporter, I don't mind the continuation of the tactics, it just increases his odds of winning. I just wonder how such an incredibly intelligent group of people as Hillary has in her campaign can be so blind to the results of their tactics.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

As I stated before, I think you spend to much time in that kindergarten class. My point is, and I this will be third time I say this, also agreeing with Anita. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
So, to answer your questions:
He is a dirty politician just like everyone else. He is no saint just like every other politician.
Both Hillary and Obama would be good together if only they could work together.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Here is an interesting one- who is, and the key word here is potentially, involved in more scandals? See:

Posted by: Dave | February 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse


The Clintons sold the possibility of a Clinton & Obama ticket down the river when they went negative, the same way they sold the Democratic party down the river during Bill's tenure.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse


I think you are disingenous in your comments.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

To citizenxx: Ask me if I care.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

SENATOR OBAMA HAS JUST STATED THAT HE BELIEVES IN A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. In light of what has happened yesterday, and as a parent, I find this unforgivable.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse


What is Hillary's stance on the right to bear arms?

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I feel sad and ashamed of my country and countrymen.
You'd think that after the lessons of Bush/Cheney people would focus on the issues and the candidates positions on them.

Instead, we've in danger of what choosing another "empty suit"

Read the policy proposals on both candidates web sites

Obama's plans are half-baked and don't work.

Make sure you know who you're hiring before you hire them.

Obama is nothing but charm and hot air.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse


What did you just provide to the debate? Substance or innuendo and name calling?

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The debate has got to change from personalities and cheap shots and focus on the issues instead.

Once the issues come out, Obama's fall will be the hardest and most severe in recent political history.

He is not the man you think he is.

Thank God I've seen his type before. Silicon valley used to be crawling with them. Empty suits that sound good on the surface but there's nothing there.

Then we woke up.


Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you tell me James. Before we go at this again, please remember this shooting just happened in Obama's home state. Where he has voted against banning handguns. Hillary has not done this in Illinois she is a senator in New York.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is desperate


Desperate Hilary lies, lies lies

Voters beware

Posted by: citizen | February 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse


I disagree. Assessment of personalities in a presidential race IS substantive. The candidates personality will in large part determine whether they will be able to bring people together OR in contrast create division and obstacles to achieving changes in policy. Being president is NOT the same as representing a state, which both have done. And it is NOT the same as being first lady/advisor. Thus, it is essential to assess which candidate possesses the character traits capable of bridging political differences.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Rmayr and what do you me his people. Last time I checked he's white and black

Posted by: LMAO | February 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Please look at BOTH candidates websites, especially their health care proposals.

Hillary's is well thought out. Obama's is not.

Do your own research on the ISSUES.


Obama's ideas are half-baked.

Look at both web sites.

See for yourself.

There's a lot less to Obama than meets the eye.

The more detail you learn about Obamas plans, and just how "broken" they are, the more you'll vote for Hillary.

Posted by: svreader | February 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The majority of posts between r.mary and joe seem to reveal a former student objecting to anyone saying anything negative about his old prof. Commendable in the traditional sense, but the flavour reveals Joe's arrogance; which, interestingly enough, is character flaw that has been noted in Barack Obama as well (Atlantic Monthly 11/07).

Other comments, Jack's as a case in point, seem to provide support for recent analysis that declare that the 'white man vote' may determine the outcome of the nomination. Apparently, 'white men favour a black man over a white woman' for president - based on exit poll results.

If such arrogant, tight comments continue to come from men supporting Barack Obama, you might just find that they'll serve as a guarantor for Barack Obama's election. However, you might also find, that there will be significant negative impacts as well. Most specifically, the gender-split within the Democratic Party (which seems less likely since black women seem to have fallen in love with both Barack and Michelle Obama), or a gender backlash that might take the social argument back to the days of the Women's Rights movement.

So - just a wee suggestion to old Joe and Jack; think beyond the distance of what you hold in your hand, before you speak to women, who opposes you, in such a derrogatory, minimalizing manner.

Posted by: BarbarainCan | February 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

LMAO: Did you not say "he is just a black man guilty until proven innocent"?

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse


Then your answer to my question is that Hillary does support the right to bear arms, but has supported legislation to control hand guns. Obama has voted for restrictions on hand guns as well.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's. Both have continuously funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Voting to continue funding of troops AFTER they have been committed is NOT THE SAME as voting to go to war.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I am not a US citizen,only a greencard holder. I havealways respected the Clintons. I have read both of their own books. I am sorry to say that Obama has impressed me more than either Clintons about his truthfulness, leadership and vision. I ignored Bill Clinton's racial comments as foolish political step. I forgot his lies about his sexual missteps as foolish . Repeat attacks against Obama disappoint me. Suicidal strategy.I will reccomend my children and my grandson to vote for Obama.

Posted by: shantisaab | February 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

@ svreader

Be that as it may, I want someone who's nose isn't up Dubais ass, like her and her wife, opps, husband!

Posted by: SeattleGuy | February 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow...I'm stunned by the back and forth of these comments. Is any one in touch with reality here? This is a prime example of Dems ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

1. Clinton and Obama and are both POLITICIANS! By the nature of their job they deal with unsavory people. It happens.

2. Clinton and Obama were in elected office under REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES. By the nature of that arrangement they have to compromise to get things done. It happens.

3. Clinton and Obama are CAMPAIGNING against each other. By the nature of that job they have to draw distinctions as they see them between each other and resort to some hyperbole. It happens.

So what's the difference? Clarity and philosophy.

Oh philosophy, Obama came from and supports a grassroots environment. He campaigns from the grassroots. He believes in the power of the people to make positive change. Clinton is a trickle-down leader. She campaigns centrally and believes that she knows how to make positive change, not the people.

On clarity, Obama has released his tax returns and financial records. He's opened up his personal records and written a starkly honest autobiography. He believes and acts on the principal that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Clinton refuses to release her financial records. She supported Bush in closing Presidential records from public view and, well, we all know how how open the Clinton's have been about their personal life.

The argument can be made for a centralized unitary president. The argument can be made for secrecy and presidential privacy. And the argument can certainly be made for personal privacy. The argument can also be made for grassroots government, for openness and honesty.

Which one do you like better? Right now the American people are deciding that they like grassroots honesty. That's why Obama is winning, despite the imperfections of POLITICS.

Posted by: KyndDave | February 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Consider this for a nightmare - Hillary wins the Democatic Party nomination for President - She appoints Bill as vice president - Hill & Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats maintain control of the House and the Senate. - Hillary is sworn as President on January 20, 2009. - The next day, after the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to make an announcement: she is resigning as President!!! - Bill, as Vice President, immediately becomes President!!! This is all perfectly legal under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that no person "may be elected as president more than twice". Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the remainder of Hillary's term --- all 4 years of it. - But wait! There's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now vacant Vice President Position. Guess who he picks? Why, Hillary, of course!!! The possibility of a Clinton dynasty that could last for several more years than the Bush, so called dynasty. The far left Democrats would love this but it makes me break out in a cold sweat just to consider it.

Posted by: wildturkey71 | February 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse


It is interesting that you frame Joe's responses to r.mary as arrogant, when in fact he has very calmly and rationally simply disagreed with them. It is this type of intentional distortion of what we have observed with our own eyes that has resulted in an increasing number of Democrats to turn away from Hillary and her campaign tactics.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse


Due to your past comments, I never assumed that you did care. Your blind and empty loyalty to the past is why you and yours are a dying breed. Besides, where does it say in the Clintonian dirty playbook that you should care?

I do assume by your statement: [SENATOR OBAMA HAS JUST STATED THAT HE BELIEVES IN A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. In light of what has happened yesterday, and as a parent, I find this unforgivable. Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 01:12 PM],

that you also are one of those reactionaries that have no problem changing the US Constitution at the drop of a hat. This was a sick person who committed such an atrocious act, yet you are ready to do away with the rights that we have had since the beginning.

I am sure you are one of those people whom easily would fall into the Hillary demographic.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse


It is interesting that you will critique Obama's position but are unwilling to even acknowledge your candidates position, which is virtually identical.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

TO JAMES: who claims that Obama was one of his professor's, surely didn't get you anywhere but to blog all day long on his behalf.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I never claimed I was a student of Obama's. You have me confused with Joe.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

if Hillary has all this experience, why hasn't she proved any of it? she refuses to release the WH papers/notes and this strikes me in two ways-

1- she either DOESN'T have all the experience she claims to have


2-she doesn't want it to get out that the experience she DOES have is in failed policy (i.e.- the health care debacle).

either way, she looks still loks like she's hiding something. maybe something more than just lack of real experience? she has held public office for less time than Obama...

also- to touch on something that was mentioned earlier about Bill's infidelity...if he's willing to lie about it to his wife, daughter AND the country, what else will/did he lie about? and if she was like 90% of the rest of the women in this country (my wife included), why didn't she leave him? because it would have destroyed her chances to get into politics in the first place.

r.mary- you will win more converts to your way of thinking by not stooping to the level of the Clintons. and BTW- one of the guns used in DeKalb was a shotgun.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

And what are you doing R.mary?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse


It is interesting that you now resort to name calling.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

R.Mary, like other Clintonian throwbacks, would rather attack the individual, then the idea.

The dirty politics of the past are over. I would rather look to the possibility of the future. I think it can be far better then the 90's. You know, the 90's, when BILL was in charge, and Hillary did not hold a security clearance, was not given any of her husbands daily intelligence briefing, nor did she attend any of the National Security Council meetings. (Dec. 26 New York Times)

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry James, I meant to say Joe.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Like I said before CITIZENXX. ASK ME IF I CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF ME. You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of doing.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

There is not an ADULT HUMAN ALIVE that has not lied, expressed bias, had to make a decision that went against their moral grain, or had to choose between two evils. We need to focus on the issues at hand. If we do not put aside petty differences like race and gender, counting lies, and spreading malicious rumors in the spirit of getting to the truth; the truth is the Iraqi, Irani, Russians, Chinese, and any other anti-American country will not have to strike against us. The civil turmoil we are facing now will top 9/11/01 thousands fold. INCREASE THE PEACE! SAVE OUR NATION!

Posted by: Yolanda | February 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The most salient point made in the article is how powerless Sen. Obama looks in his attempt to pass this legislation; he was usurped both by his dem colleagues as well has his republican enemies. Although this is probably just a normal part of life as a "jr. senator", it seems to me he has a lot of dues to pay before he gets elected POTUS...

Posted by: Tiny | February 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

So wait a minute Tiny. You are blaming Obama for the unethical behavior of his colleagues? A very odd inference to draw from the article.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I see all you people judging Clinton,judge you're selfe also. I'm sure they both have done things that they wish they could change,it's done.Now you have to look at the one that has the most expereance,surely not Obama!!!! Hilary did a good job the 8 years they were in office.I don't make but about 36000. a year and I know that I was in a lot better off than i am now,that's the way to run a country take care of home first...

Posted by: Rick | February 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

R. Mary and James,

If one of you is a man and one of you a woman, I think you should seriously consider going out on a date together. You have so much to talk about!

Personally, reading thru your postings here, I have to say that James has the more reasoned arguments. Besides, I am a life-long democrat and someone who thinks that for all Bill Clinton's issues, he was a heck of a President. And I now unwaveringly support Obama for President. For when you strip all the peripheral stuff away, (like the fact checker article which spawned this discussion) the way forward for us is right there in his vision. Going backward - with Hilary or McCain or anyone else - is out of the question. The stakes are too high.

Posted by: an interested reader | February 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse


You are giving the Clinton's credit for the tech bubble, with which they had nothing to do. And if you recall, she was "first lady". I'm not sure what experience as first lady prepares someone for, but I would argue that it's not being president.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

R.Mary, Please say something outside of your Hillary demographic that makes sense. Make a point. Any point, instead of just blah blah blah'ing your way into the conversation.

I am doing the exact same thing as you? Please missy, for your information I am home from work, it is 8:02 pm, and I am on my own time.

Say something that contributes to the blog, and cease with your negative and inane banter.

(And if you would have read my previous comment, you would see it was in reference to you, but not directed to you. I was talking around you. Thus, no need to repeat your "I don't care...yadda yadda yadda.)

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a combo of political hack and snake oil salesman. If the media would get off its duffs and do an honest anaylsis of the man, the public would be well served. A lot of it has already been reported over the years, by the Chicago Tribune and the Sun Times. But the media is too infatuated with this "fairytale" to do its job.

Posted by: Rick | February 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Hilary did a good job the 8 years they were in office?

You mean we have already had the Billary years? That means she gets Bill credit by association?

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse


Simply because nothing has been found, doesn't mean they haven't looked.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Believe me I've known snake oil salesman over the years and I would argue that Hillary's husband is perhaps at the top of that list.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is pro-war. Obama isn't. What is so hard to figure out about that? She voted against the ban on cluster bombs. He voted for it. She voted for the war, he marched against it.

I marched against the war too. And I am positive if I had been in the senate I would have voted against it. I believe Obama also would have.

Posted by: Brendan | February 15, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: storytellers13 | February 15, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

What did you expect from the F***ing C***???

Posted by: Jonny B Good | February 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: storytellers13 | February 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

**So wait a minute Tiny. You are blaming Obama for the unethical behavior of his colleagues? A very odd inference to draw from the article.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 02:02 PM **

Nope, not blaming; just an observation that he did not meet his legislative goal for whatever reasons. This would indicate that evidently his legislative "clout" left something to be desired. And it's a big leap to go from jr. senator directly to the prez...where his legacy would be partially determined by what legislation he successfully pushed through.

Just an interesting contrast, that's all.

Posted by: Tiny | February 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

CITIZENXX: If you truly can read, all I have been doing is commenting facts. If you don't like my saying to you over and over again "ask me if I care what you think of me" then stop writing to me. You don't have to be on here, I am voicing my opinion to facts, and you or no one else will ever stop me from doing so.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Everyone needs to think carefully before anointing Obama as president, not only because he has not been vetted for his potential weaknesses but also because we have no way of assessing whether or not he can really produce changes needed. He reminds me of a similarly evangelistic inspirational speaker named Jimmie Carter who was unable to make change happen once he was elected.

Posted by: bjbprice | February 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Note to wildturkey71:
Lay off the Wild Turkey; it's addled what passes for your brain.

Back to the original topic:
High ranking Exelon officials have given $160,000 to WonderBoy's camaign. Is that for past or future access?

Of course everyone in politicss, including Hillary Clinton, receives contributions from special interests. What I want to know is this: if Barack Obama takes contributions from special interests, how will he bring about change? If you are into the same game of accepting money from people who assume that they are paying to play how do you differ from the others?

One poster excused Obama by sayhing that if he had held out for a stronger bill it wouldn't have passed because the Republicans would have blocked it.

My reading of the matter is that Obama listened to and worked with Exelon, not with his non-donating constitunts, I may be wrong about that, but I'm not wrong in saying that in the end he accomplished nothing. The bill died.

After the 2008 elections the Democrats should have a firm majority in both houses. Let's keep Obama in the Senate and see how he deals with the interests of his big contributors.

Obama's big on change, change, change, but I don't want change. I want a reversion to the FDR and LBJ days of concern for the hardworking poor and middle income classes and attention to the social and economic needs of all Americans, not just those who can afford access to politicians.

Posted by: mmm | February 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews fired a salvo at the Clinton campaign this morning after both he and his MSNBC colleague were privately and publicly rebuked for recent comments deemed misogynistic or inappropriate.

Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Hardball host went off on the Clinton press shop, calling them "knee cappers" who were "lousy" and delve in the business of "intimidation."

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Good point bjbprice. Then again, what options do we have? The only honest option out of the whole lot is Ron Paul anyway.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

An earlier poster wrote: "The NY Times story certainly implied that
Obama watered down the bill after Excelon objected. At best, he caved to pressure from Senate Republicans. How reassuring."

Obama was the very first Democrat I considered last year, and I rejected him outright for this very reason. Compromise and change are not needed now--they were needed when the Democrats were at a disadvantage. The advantage is all ours now, so it's time to kick the Republicans while they are down.

Posted by: bkp | February 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

CITIZENXX: If you truly can read, all I have been doing is commenting facts. If you don't like my saying to you over and over again "ask me if I care what you think of me" then stop writing to me. You don't have to be on here, I am voicing my opinion to facts, and you or no one else will ever stop me from doing so.

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 02:24 PM


Blah blah blah...

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse


No legislator has TOTAL control over either their own party or the opposition. Your comment is disingenuous.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

That is so mature of you. LOL

Posted by: r.mary | February 15, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"The choice came down to no bill or a weaker bill," said Boxer, who said she is "neutral" in the presidential campaign. "Barack tried desperately to get it through, but got the best thing he could."

When the revised bill was introduced on September 13, it met with unanimous consent. Senator Clinton issued a press release hailing "this important legislation," saying that it would ensure that the public received "prompt notification" of future leaks at nuclear reactors. On September 25, she signed on as a co-sponsor of the revised bill.

This is it in a nutshell. Hillary Clinton is worse than a scalaway, she is a blatant liar who would and does say anything in her attempt to get elected. Just how much lack of character and personal integrity will the American people accept in a candidate for President. Anyone who would vote for someone who is well-known as a liar and goes out of her way to prove that fact every day has no right to complain about the lack of intefrity of anyone who occupies the Oval Office; past, present or future.

There appears to be no limit to the number of lies the Clintons can tell in their effort to SMEAR Senator Obama, but surely there must be a line than simply can NOT be crossed and Hillary Clinton has just crossed it with her irresponsible allegation of a quid pro quo deal where she accuses a colleague of accepting money in exchange for wording of a bill submitted before Congress. This is absolutely disgusting behavior and I believe it is time for Hillary to either PUT UP OR SHUT UP! You simply don't make such a serious accusation impugning anyone's integrity unless you can offer definitive proof; I don't care who you are or what your position in life is. Every single voter in this country needs to demand that Hillary Clinton offer proof to support her outrageous accusation right now or she needs to withdraw from the campaign in disgrace! At the very least, she owes Senator Obama a public apology. This type of scorched earth personal attack can NOT be tolerated!!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

To Draper- Prominent women in political history:

Queen Isabel de Castilla (Spain)
Queen Elizabeth I (England)
Mary Queen of Scots
Catherine The Great (Russia)
Queen Elizabeth II (England)

Female Prime Ministers:
Margaret Tatcher (England)
Indira Gandhi (India)
Golda Meir (Israel)
Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan)

Female Presidents:
Corazon Aquino (Philippines)
Violeta Chamorro (Nicaragua)
Suhbaataryn Yanjumaa (Mongolia)Isabel Perón (Argentina)
Lydia Guelier Tejada (Bolivia)
Ruth Perry (Liberia)
Rosalía Arteaga Serrano (Ecuador)
Mary McAleese (Ireland)
Janet Jagan (Guyana)
Ruth Dreifuss (Switzerland)
Micheline Calmy-Rey (Swiss Conf.)
Dalia Itzik (Israel)
María Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (Philippines)
Tarja Kaarina Halonen (Finland)
Mireya Elisa Moscoso de Arias (Panama)
Vaira-Vike-Freiberga (Latvia)
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (Liberia)Nina Burdzhanadze (Georgia)
Carmen Pereira (Guinea Bissau)
Ertha Pascal-Trouillot (Haiti)
Song Qingling (Taiwan)
Mary Robinson (Ireland)
Megawarti Sukarnopti (Indonesia)
Sabine Bergman-Pohl (German Democratic Republic)
Silivie Knight (Burundi)
Vidgis Finnbogadóttir (Iceland)
Chandrika Kumaratunga (Sri Lanka)
Michelle Bachelet (Chile)
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina)

Posted by: María Onetti-Bischoff | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Can't believe Senator Clinton throws stones in a glass house. NY Times hot shot reporter who followed up on this "story" wrote a biased piece. After leading the reader to believe that Obama may have been bought off by Nuclear Power Industry it failed to mention that Senator Clinton is the second largest receiver of money from Nuclear Power is she dirty also?

Posted by: ron p. | February 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse


Carter's problem in Washington was his obsessive focus on details of policy at the expense of higher level decision making and coalition building. Frankly, this sounds a bit more like Obama's competitor.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse


O.K. I give up. Your dog is bigger than mine! Back to kindergarten for me.

Posted by: tcinaz | February 15, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Can she recollect Vince Fox,Monica,jenifer
Flower,watergate,white house staff,lincoln bedroom,residency in NY.Let not turn this camapign to the nasty one.Bill& Hillary should know better is over nobody can change a God will ever so called super delegates won just do

Posted by: miaffeu | February 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

This is about as vile an attack as it ever gets in politics and is unbelievably desperate for a candidate in a primary election. Ms. Clinton should be very glad that she IS a woman, because such a viscious personal attack on anyones integrity like this without a centilla of proof is liable to get another man a fat lip! It wouldn't have surprised me to see Hillary or Bill release this kind of a whispering attack, secretly, behind Senator Obama's back (the way they have done previously) but for Hillary, herself, to publicly claim something so disgusting is outrageous.

If Clinton has any proof whatsoever for this claim, I invite her to produce it right now. I insist that she produce it right now. If she has no proof, she needs to apologize immediately and withdraw in shame from this campaign. I can't believe that any of the Super Delegates will stand by Clinton based on this behavior unless she can offer definitive proof. Those super Delegates are high ranking politicians and DNC officials, and they should be apalled that anyone would slander a fellow politician, particularly from their own party on the subject of personal integrity without strong substantiation. I expect to see a long list of Super Delegates switching allegiance from Clinton to Obama in the coming days if they have any integrity of their own!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

To Joe and the Obamabots,
I am from Chicago born and raised and Obama is as crooked as any of the Cook County pols. On Rezko: Obama would not have been able to afford the house that he bought w/out Rezko buying the adjoining lot next door and thus knocking $300,000 off the price for Obamas house. This was payback for Obama writing a letter and using his influence the help Rezko's company get $14 mill in state funding for a project in Obamas district. That dirty enough for you. Now on University of Chicago. Right after Obama was elected to the Senate Obamas wife salary rose to 3X what it was before that and then a few months later Obama earmarks millions of dollars to U of C where his wife sits on the board. Coincidence I think not. Obamas mentor is the most sorrupt memeber of IL politics. Emil Jones. If you need mroe I have plenty. Just ask.

Posted by: james | February 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Historically, African-Americans have shown that they do not vote for a presidential candidate simply because s/he is African-American. If that were true, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and Al Sharpton would have done as well as Barack Obama has done when they ran for office. However, that's not the case.

Barack Obama has managed to confuse political pundits who have not yet conceived what's actually happening in America because their education hasn't taught them how to analyze a "movement." They are skilled at analyzing a "political campaign." Therefore, we have a "movement" versus a "political campaign." In America there has only been four movements since our existence: (1) When America declared its Independence from England; (2) When Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., unified the country to fight for Civil Rights; (3) When John F. Kennedy ran for president; and now, (4) Barack Obama. During each of these "movements" we have heard stories about the greatest orators in American history. Let's take a look at Patrick Henry who declared the American liberation movement:

In 1765 Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in Williamsburg. The same year, the British Parliament infuriated the colonies by passing the Stamp Act, a form of direct taxation. Henry led the fight against the act in the House of Burgesses and presented seven resolutions condemning it. The resolutions asserted that only the colonial legislatures could levy taxes on the colonies. In support of his resolutions, Henry warned, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third ... may profit by their example." In answer to cries of treason from conservative members, Henry replied, "If this be treason, make the most of it." The resolutions started a chain reaction that deeply affected opinion in other colonies.

Next, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave the "I Have A Dream" speech during the Civil Rights movement:

"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."

. . .

"I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."

Senator Barack Obama won the Alabama primary and I truly believe he is simply fulfilling the dream of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and will bring this entire Nation into the next chapter of American history: "The Promise Land."

President John F. Kennedy motivated this country with the following words that rang true for every American:

"It is not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country."

According to the great American Philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, it was said:

"The spiritual is stronger than any material force, thoughts rule the world."

Historically, the person leading the "movement" has always been the victor. Hillary Clinton is running a political campaign that lays out unguaranteed "issues" while Barack Obama offers "hope" and concludes that "there is nothing false about hope." These words resonate with an American people who have been subjected to eight years of lying, stealing, and murder. Americans have felt powerless against its electorate until Barack Obama came along and said "this movement" doesn't start from the top down, it "begins from the bottom up." His message explicitly states that the new government will work for the people, not Corporate America.

Finally, I do not find it sad that Hillary Clinton is losing this election. After all, she is trying to kill the message of "hope." During the Civil Rights movement Whites/Blacks collectively would not allow anyone to kill "the dream." Patrick Henry put his life on the line when he vehemently spoke out against the tyranny of the British Parliament. As Barack Obama said: "We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change" . . . "We have been told that we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. It will only grow louder and more dissonant. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We been warned against offering the people of this Nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false . . . about hope." I want CHANGE what about you?

Posted by: Edward Nelson | February 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I agree with |.

I can tell you this, and that is, if Howard Dean and the DNC allow either Florida or Michigan to be seated at the convention, then I will turn my DEM Card in and look elsewhere for leadership. If they were not going to stand up to their earlier, and I feel justified, penalty for moving ahead their respective primaries, then they should not have penalized them in the first place.

I will also not support, and do everything in my local power, to campaign against anyone who does support allowing those states delegates to be seated.

It is a typical Hillary tactic to go along until it no longer helps them. It's funny how it was fine for her to allow the two states to be penalized when she thought that she was going to walk away with the nomination. Now, when the chips are down, and her donor base is running thin, she cries foul.

Clinton cries for "justice" in letting the states citizens be heard. You knew she was going to pull this when she went ahead and did her Florida play, even after all candidates agreed not to run. To show unity with the Democratic Party, both Obama and Edwards withdrew their names from the Michigan ballots. Hillary didn't bother, for the Democratic Party is nothing but a tool to feed her feelings of self-entitlement.

It really is just typical of their slash and burn attitude toward maintaining the Clinton power base. Feelings of self-entitlement will always rot the soul of those who hold it, and those who support it.

I strongly urge you to NOT allow the super-delegates to supercede the will of the American people.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

My hat off, and a deep bow, to the fine and honorable Mr. Edward Nelson.

What a most wonderful posting. I thank you most sincerely.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Could you explain to me how purchasing an adjacent lot knocks $300,000 off of the purchase of a home?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey James...

Can you post some of the links that this info comes from?


Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I strongly support Obama over Clinton. However, it is certainly not on the basis of his principled and perfect stand on the environment! I believe Clinton to the extent that Obama appears to be in the pocket of the Excelon nuclear executives, and he is also in the pocket of the Illinois coal industry. I appreciate very much that Obama has been making noise recently about an 80% CO2 reduction by 2050, and I like that his cap-and-trade proposal calls for all permits to be auctioned, not given away free to polluters. (A carbon tax would be much better; unfortunately, none of the leading candidates proposed it).

As an Obama supporter, I don't think it's necessary to fawn all over "my" candidate or find excuses for every one of his faults. Nor do I think it's necessary to denigrate the opponent. Clinton also has plenty of wealthy and corrupt industrialists on her side, notably in the financial, insurance and real estate sectors. Hey, it's Presidential politics. Those people have to pick their horse, too. Ultimately, although both these candidates have very serious faults, I think it's clear that Obama represents a better chance of winning against McCain -- a better chance of uniting the country behind his admittedly mediocre, but better than things stand now (and largely the same as Clinton's) policy proposals -- and the only chance of involving young people in creating a solid progressive majority for the next decade and beyond.

That's why I'm for Obama... not because he's so perfect, or because I think he's God, or because I hate Clinton. It's a solid, pragmatic, choice of lesser evils situation... just like Presidential politics always is.

Posted by: Fred | February 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

María Onetti-Bischoff

Many thanks for printing your flash cards from your women's studies program.

Posted by: puh-leeze | February 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

For all of you Obama lovers who have blasted Hillary for her comments on Obama's
links to the Exelon company and his non- passage of his nuclear bill, let me tell you this.This story was originally reported in the N.Y.Times on Feb. 3rd. In the two week interim, I would imagine that the Clinton campaign researched this information before they commented on it and, therefore they found it legitimate enough to report on, themselves. I have been wondering why this had not been a bigger story since it first appeared.
There have been other denials of Clinton exposes on Obama but because of the "rock star syndrome" of the typical Obama follower, the denials of Obama's faults have been legion! Perhaps, you followers of Obama should open your eyes and your minds to thoughts other than those that come out of Obama's mouth. You might learn that grandiose speech does not a candidate make. Look into his voting record. Look at the lack of character he has shown in his actions, especially to Hillary. And look at this nuclear situation more carefully. The Times article gives names of the Exelon executives. It gives money amounts.At the very least, why did Obama lie and tell an audience that he had passed the bill, just last year, when he knew that he had not rewritten the bill for passage at all? Why was it not rewritten and resubmitted for a vote? If he lied once, could he have lied twice, or
maybe 20 times, or more? Look for substance in a candidate, not words!.

Posted by: Adele Federman | February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

An Authentic Leader in the White House?
Posted February 15, 2008 | 03:18 PM (EST)

The resounding victories of Barack Obama and John McCain in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. -- Obama by an average of 34 percentage points and McCain by 28 -- confirm a growing desire of the American public to elect an authentic leader as its next president.

At every talk I have given this past year on True North and authentic leadership, one of the first questions is, "Is it possible to have an authentic leader in the White House?" At first, I begged off these questions, saying my research on leaders was based entirely on business and non-profit leaders. Privately, I had my doubts that our political process, which has become so negative and vicious in recent years, would permit an authentic leader to prevail.

As this extended primary campaign moves on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the American public is not only open to an authentic leader as President, but demanding one. The two leading candidates at present, John McCain and Barack Obama, are on the rise precisely because they are authentic.

The media seems to think this election is about gender and race. I think it is about authenticity. Most people under 40 are so cynical about politicians who promise one thing and do another, or who are unwilling to admit their mistakes and shortcomings, that they will only get engaged for a leader that they are convinced is authentic. No wonder that both Obama and McCain have such a following among independents and the younger generations.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney may have been the best qualified candidate in either party, but he failed because he lacked authenticity and seemed to say whatever people wanted to hear. His positions on key issues changed so dramatically since his years as governor of Massachusetts that no one knew what he stood for. The same could be said for the precipitous fall of Rudy Giuliani, once the Republican front-runner.

McCain, on the other hand, who was left for dead last summer as his campaign was falling apart, came back on the strength of his authenticity. McCain, who experienced his crucible as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, tells it like it is. He is not afraid to go against popular positions or the Republican hierarchy, including the current president. As he has assumed front-runner status for the nomination, the hard-liners in the Republican Party have tried to bring him in line, but he has steadfastly refused.

On the Democratic side, Hilary Clinton is fully qualified to be president, but people don't seem to know who she really is. She is extremely skilled at playing the polls and figuring out the right appeals to voter subgroups, but this has only led to unusually high negatives in the eyes of many people who are politically aligned with her positions. The one time she showed a little emotion in New Hampshire voters responded by giving her a surprise victory over Obama. Then she returned to the negative side in South Carolina, and her support has been slipping ever since.

Obama's authenticity is precisely what makes him so appealing to such a wide range of voters. He seems "good in his skin," and is able to rise above the negative attacks. His message of hope and change, backed up by specific programs that seem logical to most people, is inspiring a lot of Americans to get engaged in the political process. For all the talk that he would wither under the pressure, he seems to get stronger and more confident as he goes.

Obama talks openly about his crucible -- coming from a mixed race family, watching his parents divorce while he was very young, moving to Hawaii, and being confused in high school about which direction to go -- until he found himself in his early twenties. His opponents say that he lacks experience, which is not really true. At 43 years of age, Obama has had an abundance of life's experiences, which enable him to understand the lives of ordinary Americans and to empathize with their challenges.

He is confident enough to sit down with a wide variety of world leaders, even those with whom the United States currently has hostile relationships, and try to work out solutions. He uses the same approach to health care, offering to bring all the interested parties around a big table and seek solutions, something his opponent steadfastly refused to do in the early-1990s and is currently belittling him for today.

In a topsy-turvy election year, there's no assurance that either McCain or Obama will be elected president, but that doesn't take away from voters' desires for an authentic leader in the White House.

This just might be the year. Wouldn't that be a change?

Bill George is the author of the best-selling books, True North and Authentic Leadership, and the former chairman and CEO of Medtronic. His web site is

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her [mailing] lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission....]

"All Things Considered," NPR, February 13, 2008

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

What about the "Global Poverty Act" that Obama has recently slid under the radar, and into the Senate? He did it for delegate votes, THAT'S WHAT !

This bill, if passed, will cost taxpayers $846 billion dollars that the US will have to pay to the UN. Even rolling back the tax cuts from the wealthy will not cover it.

Guess who will pay for it? ME, the Middle Class.

Obama no longer has my vote.....he's playing with MY money to get delegate votes!

Posted by: Julie from Georgia | February 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse


I suspect your "assumption" about "research" has more to do with a fight within the campaign in which some found it distasteful and likely counterproductive and others (those who recently took over) wanted to "go negative" again, because it worked in the "GOOD OLE' DAYS" of Bill's tenure.

And are you really going to bring up Obama's ethical conduct towards Hillary??? That takes some brass ones, given the behavior of Bill, Hillary, and her campaign. It would be laughable if it weren't so vile.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

To: rmary
My thing is that Matt Lauer pulled a picture of Rezko with the Clintons when they were in the White House and asked her to explain why she and Bill were smiling in the picture with the 'slum landlord'. She smiled again and told Matt that she did not remember the occasion. She has taken pictures with thousands of people. He stated that they seemed to be happy. You see, like the article we are blogging on, when you point ONE finger at someone, THREE FINGERS AND A THUMB IS pointing back at you. Run a positive campaign and EXPLAIN YOURSELVE and STOP TRYING TO EXPLAIN SOMEONE ELSE! THIS NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN DOES NOT WORK! PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF THIS CRAP!
Peace and a long life!

Posted by: Lpierce | February 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse


I can understand your criticism. Who in the world would want to reduce global poverty?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

To Fred...
Your comment was very well stated and I appreciate your stand.
I, on the other hand, will vote for Hillary for the very same reasons that you will be voting for Obama. She was not my original choice, I prefered Biden. For a while, Obama enchanted me with his oratory but that spell did not last long. I awoke when he slammed Hillary as being the cause of Bhutto's assassination. [ the reason?..her vote to give Bush the authority to go to war...which isn't an exact desciption of what her vote was actually for ]. I saw Obama give this speech on a tape shown on a TV news show. It was called "Obama's Last Speech in Iowa". Apparently, damage control was done and the tape was removed from the show's transcripts and was never mentioned again. There was, however, an interview on the Tim Russert show in which Obama was asked if he believed this accusation to be true. Obama gave a chuckle and replied, "Of course not!". When Hillary was on Tim's show a week or two later, she remarked to him that she had never received an apology from Obama.
This incident was the start of my dislike of Obama. Other incidents followed and it has gotten to the point where I will never vote for him, even if it means that McCain will win the election. I do not like what McCain stands for but he is more worthy to be President than Obama is.

Posted by: Adele Federman | February 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama has donated $694,000 and Clinton has donated $195,000 to the super delegates for their re-elections.

Since joining the Senate, Obama's voting record on Iraq has been identical to Hillary's. Both have continuously funded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Change? Really?

Posted by: lndlouis | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse


Another fine example of what the movement toward a change in politics is all about.

I could not agree more Lpierce. There are too many people that will defend bogus and bunk accusations, by slanderous and negative attacks on those who pose indefensible questions.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

We are all on the same team!!! Both Candidates, while highlighting differences, state that we need keep this competition above the fray. Either Dem is better for our country than McCain! Let's keep that in mind! Demonizing someone who disagrees with your opinion is the republican way! Let's be better than this!!

Posted by: cmajorgreene | February 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted to go to war. And she has yet to acknowledge she was wrong.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Change will happen...but will it be progress?

Every time we accept another government program, handout, or bonus, we are merely sewing the seeds of out own destruction. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are currently fighting over who will "give" the most stuff to the most people. Never forget that those gifts are stolen property, taken from those who EARNED it.

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find It and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat The corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating The free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

Posted by: RC | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

There is no such thing as a free Lunch!

A politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big Enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: RC | February 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse


Your story is just another distortion. This is the type of thing that is making an increasing number of Democrats uncomfortable with the Clintons.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I enjoy a good story as much as the next guy, but any analogy is limited is it's ability to capture the complexities of reality. Our economy and society is not as simple as you present it. Poverty in our country, increasing unemployment, and rising energy prices are creating substantial problems. Now, we can take what is implied by your story and conclude that we should simply allow those that are on the edge of our economy to survive if they can and if they cannot, then tough. However, because we tend to possess at least a modicum of empathy, we choose different, more complicated solutions to these problems.

Posted by: RC | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse


I enjoy a good story as much as the next guy, but any analogy is limited is it's ability to capture the complexities of reality. Our economy and society is not as simple as you present it. Poverty in our country, increasing unemployment, and rising energy prices are creating substantial problems. Now, we can take what is implied by your story and conclude that we should simply allow those that are on the edge of our economy to survive if they can and if they cannot, then tough. However, because we tend to possess at least a modicum of empathy, we choose different, more complicated solutions to these problems

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"Earned"? Possibly yes, in a matter of speaking. But, earning can also be looked at as the results of owning the means of production as well.

By allocating finite resources of society, in such a way that maximizes the overall return on such investments, the whole becomes greater the sum of it's parts.

Is that good? Well, that I feel is up to the individual and the worldview that they personally hold.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

A post from another blog that I found interesting:

"Senator Clinton has based her campaign on an erroneous claim to greater legislative and administrative experience. Former President Clinton talks up her role in his administration on the campaign trail but pointedly refuses to release any documents that would provide greater details on her actual activities there. It is broadly understood that Hillary spearheaded the response team that staved off Republican attacks and spun the many scandals of the Clinton years. As to her Senate record, no one in the press has had the diligence to lay out her record for the public to assess.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Now, I would post those of Senator Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills.

He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits. I challenge Clinton supporters to name a single legislative accomplishment that demonstrates her superior experience."

Posted by: wchever | February 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but Camp Clinton has stooped to new lows. To think that I was actually going to vote for her! (I almost regret having worked so hard for him in 1992). Will they stop at nothing to get the nomination?

Posted by: Maggie | February 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse


I am not sure exactly what adavantage you think the democrats have. If you are not careful McCain will win. He probably will if Clinton wins the nomination. At least all the polls say this.

Posted by: Brendan | February 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's argument that MI and FL should NOW count is perhaps the most underhanded and vile attempt to undermine agreed to rules. I really thought I was beyond being shocked by the Clintons, but she has once again proved me wrong.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't the news media go to the people in Illinois and ask them about Exelon and the effects that company has had on their environment. Also the executives of Exelon not only have donated to Obama, but their employess have had to do the same. Isn't it illegal for a business to force their employees to donate to the party or candidate that the higher ups dictate them to? Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod. what are his ties to Exelon?

Posted by: bocona | February 15, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

To: JamesWhanger

No, obviously you do not understand.

Obama said he was going to take wealthy tax cuts AND the money we are spending in Iraq, and put it BACK INTO THE USA.


Posted by: Julie in Georgia | February 15, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

finally, the time has come to get rid of these infamous couple, the clintons. any good or positive achievement bill clinton may have had in his presidency, has been erased by their dark behavior.

Posted by: FRANK RIVAS | February 15, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Please explain your claim that there are "frauds and scandals' that the Clintons should explain. What do you know that the media and the newshounds and the gossips don't know? Where is your proof?
For scandals,of course, there were Bill's sexual escapades but that was [or should have been] personal and should have stayed between the 2 of them. The only way that it did any harm to the country was the way the Republicans wasted so much time on having an impeachment...for breaking one's marriage vows? Why haven't they impeached Bush for taking us into an unnecessary war which has harmed the country, not a marriage?
Courtney, that is the "scandals" part of your accusation. What are the "frauds'? Whitewater's investigation ran on for years and no proof of wrongdoing was ever found so it can't be that. What frauds were you talking about? And, proof, please.

Posted by: Adele F. | February 15, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

To MsRita...
So, the Clintons did in Vince Foster!
What tree were you hiding behind when you saw this happen? You should have run to the police, immediately, and told them about the killing so that the nasty scoundrels could have been caught!!

Posted by: Adele F. | February 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

If you think arguing against attempting to stem world poverty, you have at it. I doubt it's a winning strategy, but be my guest.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse


Although I agree charges of RAPE are very personal, they are NOT irrelevant.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse


If you think arguing against attempts to stem world poverty is a winning strategy, have at it. I doubt it is, but that's your decision.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I have read a few of the postings. Very interesting. I don't really have the time to stay and exchange comments all day long. One thing that stands out in the hype surrounding Mr.Obama's campaign. There is a real danger of falling into the media trap. If someone tells you over and over again, that a circle is really a square, many will start to believe it.
However, I do want to bring up a couple of other issue:
1. The theme of "change": I have have heard this before, mhhhh!!! Oh yes, seven years ago. What has the previous rhetoric and guarantee to change the climate and cooperation in Washington gotten us? Has Washington changed? We have bigger government then ever and not much has been accomplished to make the life of the average American better. The country is more divided then ever. Mr. Bush, with the backing of a republican senate and congress could not change Washington. What makes Mr. Obama belief that he, a junior senator with very little experience, can do better?
2. Iraq War: The issue that keeps coming up in this campaign, is Mrs. Clinton's vote FOR the Iraqi war. Mr. Obama has no standing to criticize here decision. His assertion of being against the war from the outset is commendable. However, he was not privileged to the detailed security briefings and cannot guarantee how he would have acted with the same information. He was not a senator and did not cast a vote. Given his track record on voting "present" on many occasions, one will never know how he would have voted. In hindsight, everyone is always smarter, well, except Mr. Bush. 3. Race: It has been written many times, that race should not enter in this election. Who are we kidding? The Clinton's (more so Mr. Clinton) have been vilified when making comments a few weeks ago in regards to Mr. Obama. Some people interpreted them as having racial undertones. Race has been an issue since South Carolina. Mr. Obama regularly received 70+% of the black votes. How is this possible? Am I really expected to believe that African Americans vote for Mr. Obama solely for the promised "change"? Voting for a fellow African American is more likely the reason. I am certain that many have never heard of Mr. Obama before the end of last year or more so, the beginning of this year. If white America would think and act the same way, everyone would be up in arms and cries of racism would stream in from everywhere. However, reverse racism is rarely if at all addressed. (Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Jackson, are you out there?) 4. Media Coverage: Did I miss something? Is there an unsolved issue/ issues between the main stream media and the Clinton's, from the past? I was expecting Mrs. Clinton be given a hard time from networks such as Fox. However, the hostility and open enjoyment over her "struggles" in this primary season is surprising. (A large part of her struggle has been created by the one sided coverage) It seems that networks, in particular NBC and its extended arm of cable channels, have decided to make life a little harder for Mrs. Clinton and in return lay off of Mr. Obama. Maybe this anti Clinton treatment and pro Obama coverage goes back to my third issue. I have yet to come across an African American political commentator or contributor, that has openly taken up a position in favor of Mrs. Clinton. Some have a hard time hiding their excitement. No serious attempt is being made on their part, to be impartial. The most disturbing aspect is that the networks let it happen and most of America looks past it. This years democratic primary has been disturbing. The coverage is one sided and partial. Every opportunity is taken to knock down one particular candidate and build up the other. It is my desire to have a democratic president back in the white house. I will support and vote for whomever the nominee will be. (It may not be my favorite choice) I just hope that this is the case of all the "new" followers. Need I remind everyone that leading up to the last two elections, everyone anticipated high voter turnout , in particular young and first time voters. We all know that did not happened. All the current hype will be wasted if the commitment is not followed through to the poll. Further, should Mr. Obama be the nominee for the democratic party, all of you band wagon jumpers, follow through on you promise. Do not "chicken" out at the last minute and vote for Mr. McCain. ALL OF YOU!!!! who have helped Mr. Obama to become the nominee, don't let him down now, because you may have second thoughts. You are voting for the first African American President. Inexperienced as he is, YOU have chosen him over the first woman to be President. It was YOUR choice and action that but him in this position. It's too late to back out, close the curtain and cast your ballot, now!!!! One last request to Mr. Obama: (should he be the nominee) Don't preach, talk to me men to men. If I wanted to listen to a sermon, I'l go to church.

Posted by: FM | February 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse


Your martyr perspective is very typical of a Clinton or a Clinton supporter. The reaction from the Democrats that Clinton and her supporters seem to have trouble accepting is that MANY people are voting for Obama for reasons that have little to do with Obama and EVERYTHING to do with the Clintons. We remember how Bill sold us out. We remember the shame, arrogance, and narcissistic denial of reality that he put this country through. We remember everything about the Clinton administration we really wish we could forget. We remember with distaste, the tone of Bill's campaigns and now Hillary's. Why feel dirty about supporting a Democratic candidate, when you have a viable alternative. And, more importantly, we KNOW that it would continue if there were another Clinton administration.

Posted by: James | February 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I am presently reading a book, "If You Poison Us". It concerns the lack of information given to uranium miners in the four corners area of the Southwest. So far I have learned that many government (federal) agencies had a hand in passing the buck on these issues. The Atomic Energy Commission kept shutteling the issue back and forth between the four states concerned (New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona)and the federal government. This is how these things happen. Sen. Obama, by himself, could not pass a bill or any legislation to prevent a nuclear company from doing anything. Sen. Clinton is aware of that and she just continues to tell half truths. She can get away with this because many American people are not aware of the confusing workings of our government.

Posted by: Doris Vician, Albuquerque, NM | February 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse


Your attempts to subtly infuse race into this is fascinating, and sounds rather familiar ("Further, should Mr. Obama be the nominee for the democratic party, all of you band wagon jumpers, follow through on you promise. Do not "chicken" out at the last minute and vote for Mr. McCain. ALL OF YOU!!!! who have helped Mr. Obama to become the nominee, don't let him down now, because you may have second thoughts. You are voting for the first African American President"). In fact, the tone of your text sounds rather familiar. Hmmmmmm... wonder if your initials are really Bill Clinton??? That's PRICELESS!!!! NO SHAME WHATSOEVER.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I have never seen a less ethical individual in my entire life. Absolutely beautiful!!!

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

It is a well documented fact that most of Mr. Obama's supporters are 30 years old and younger. This is the age of the 5 children I have raised.

I raised my children to "due their civic duty and vote." They do.

I also taught my children to think for themselves. They do.

However, I would hope that I also taught them not to spew just hate filled statements just because someone has a different political view. The venom that (mostly) comes out of the Obama camp is shameful. I pray everyday while reading the blog's that I don't have any child of mine on here spouting just hate filled statements.

And if I find out any of mine have been on the blogs spewing this hate about a person they have never meet, just because they have a different view, I will be "boxing" their ears. So if you are one of mine (3 of my are voting for Obama, 2 for Hillary) I will find out, I always do.

We have debates on the weekends, which one is best, but we do not speak hate. We speak facts and who would be better for the country.

Posted by: coffeedrinker | February 15, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Touted Her Role In The Exact Legislation She is Attacking Obama For
Clinton Cosponsored, Supported Obama's Bill on Reporting Requirements For Nuclear Plants. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. She praised the bill's passage in a press release that day, saying "This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; Clinton Press Release, 9/13/06]

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Touted Her Role In The Exact Legislation She is Attacking Obama For
Clinton Cosponsored, Supported Obama's Bill on Reporting Requirements For Nuclear Plants. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. She praised the bill's passage in a press release that day, saying "This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/2006; Clinton Press Release, 9/13/06]

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"I also taught my children to think for themselves. They do.

However, I would hope that I also taught them not to spew just hate filled statements just because someone has a different political view. The venom that (mostly) comes out of the Obama camp is shameful. I pray everyday while reading the blog's that I don't have any child of mine on here spouting just hate filled statements."

One's own flaws (if that's what they are), are always so much worse when encountered in others.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse


You might want to read the rest of the blog. If you somehow got the impression that a preponderance of the hatefilled spew was coming from Obama supporters, you're wrong. Also, I'm 43, white, and an Obama supporter.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary or Obama make it to the White
House America is in for some bad times.
Hillary can't be trusted, and Obama's
changes would take us from bad to worse.
The Dems hate Bush so much, they would
vote for anyone no matter what they had to
offer. The changes that Hillary & Obama
are talking about will leads us into
Socialism, and I for one don't want to
see that happen to America. This is a great
country, and if the Dems & Rep. could work
together things would be alot better for
all of us. There are too many people who
do not even know what is going on in the
world, they just want to vote for a woman
or a black person no matter what they might
do to our country.

Posted by: Sr. Citizen | February 15, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, those who oppose seating Florida or Michigan delegates do not live in those states otherwise they wouldn't be so quick to endorse the decision of the Democratic National Committee.

1,737,197 DEMOCRATS (not independents or cross-over Republicans) voted in the Florida Primary and 592,261 in the Michigan Primary. Their combined votes is greater than the popular vote in all the caucus states combined. Hillary C received 865,099 votes or 49.8% of the votes in Florida and 327,419 votes or 55% of votes cast in Michigan (Obama was not on the ballot in MI) That's a total of 1,192,518 votes for Hillary that are not going to count.

I live in Florida. I had no choice as to the date chosen by the Florida Democratic Committee and I had no avenue for appeal from the National Committee's ruling, yet I find myself in danger of being disenfranchised. Bad enough being screwed out of my vote by the Republicans and the Supreme Court, but getting reamed by my fellow Democrats .... that's too much. I can tell you this: if my vote in the Primary is negated, my money will not be flowing out to support the national ticket.

Posted by: mmm | February 15, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

MANY people are voting for Obama for reasons that have little to do with Obama and EVERYTHING to do with the Clintons.

Sounds very much like a justification of a somewhat disturbed mindset. If your vote for Mr.Obama is purely payback for what the Clinton machine has done to you and others "like you" (even tough I am sure that most of you had been better off during the Clinton years). Why use an unproven tool to gain satisfaction? Mr. Edwards would have been another alternative. It seems that personal vendettas are being placed ahead of the importance of re-establishing the USA as the nation it should and has been. Given your distaste for one candidate and your above statement, I would not be surprised, that once having achieved your desire (eliminating Mr. Clinton from reaching the general election) you will loose interest in the rest of the process. This will then lead us back to my original post. Lack of voter turnout and four years of Mr. McCain. Once that fact becomes reality, I am certain you once again will blame the Clinton's

Posted by: FM | February 15, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I can underestand a difference of opinion as to which of the Democratic candidates would make a better president or a difference of opinion as to which is more electable, but I can't believe that those slandering the Clintons are really members of the Democratic Party. The allegations, slurs and outright lies about Bill and Hillary Clinton are word for word repetittions of the Republican attacks during the Clinton administration.

References to Whitewater, Vince Foster, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky are all Republican trash talk. Whitewater was a Republican invention, Vince Foster as right wing conspiracy theory and whatever Bill Clinton did with Flowers and Lewinsky have nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary's campaign.

It's easy to talk about Hillary's misjudgments, but it's hard to substantiate that there were many. It is a commonplace to blame Hillary for the faiilure of the Clintonian Health Insurance Plan, but the blame really should be placed where it belongs: the right wing, the Republicans and the insurance industry. If there was any midjudgment, it was in the belief that they could beat the forces united against them no matter what tack they might have taken.

Posted by: mmm | February 15, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse


That's rich. You are insinuating I have a disturbed mindset because I prefer a candidate that is NOT immoral, unethical, and sleazy?? If that is disturbed, then count me as a YES.

Early on I was very intrigued by both Edwards, Obama and even thought Hillary might be okay if she dealt with her baggage (Bill) appropriately. But, she didn't. And the fact that she not only allowed Bill to infuse vile racial undertones, but actively participated in it herself just reminded me way too much of everything about the Clinton campaigns and presidency that is without integrity.

As for Edward's, his behavior during the CNN debate, in which he joined with Hillary in the old school politics of intentional distortion of Obama's record, changed my mind and put me fully in Obama's camp. Also, Edwards is way to angry to be a good president, just as Bill was and George W. is. Impulsivity makes for poor decisions. We need someone capable of calm, rational decision making, not blind, angry retaliation.

Furthermore, Obama has the personality characteristics this country needs right now to restore the damage Bush has done to the image of our great country on the international stage and to inspire much needed individual and community action to help resolve pressing economic issues.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Hey there, Sr Citizen, what in the world leads you to believe that ANY candidate among the Democrats would lead us into socialism?

What will lead this country to destruction is the increasing gap between the very rich and the middle class, the unbridled greed of corporate managers, the fact that real wages are lower than they were eight years ago, that the nation is embroiled in a misbegotten war that is costing us billions upon billions that could have been spent on repairing the nation's infrastructure, on health coverage for all and funding for the improvement of our educational systems. If you think that spending money for those ends is socialism, what do you call spending all that money for pre-emklkpltive war?

Posted by: mmm | February 15, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse


I agree that some of the issues, such as Vince Foster is a stretch, but to try to suggest that the issues Bill had and has with women WERE or ARE not RELEVANT is just plain wrong. Bill's behavior was unacceptable for anyone, much less for the president of the U.S. As a Democrat during that time I was disgusted by the fact that so many who chose to vehemently defended him. To argue that this behavior should have NO affect on someone's assessment of him and his ability to lead is crazy. If he had manned up and fessed up, he could have cut it off at the pass. But, he CHOSE NOT TO, and thus he made his bed.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Any psychologist immediately recognizes this as classic projection. That is, accusing another of engaging in (dishonest) behavior which the accusor would engage in if given the chance. What it boils to in the ballot box is this: Do we want a Nixonian--enemies everywhere, must be destroyed--personality in the White House? No, particuarly when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

James Whanger

Give examples of Hillary's immorality, unethical behavior and sleaziness. Those are wild and whirling words and they are empty of meaning. You've bought into the "Slick Willie" invention of the Republican Right. They repeated it over and over, but it was and it still is just character assassination. If Obama gets the nomination, the Swift Boaters and the other Republican hatchet men willfind tags for him. They've already run their machine over Hillary.

If you're really a Democrat and not an agent provaocateur, you'll quit the mud slinging and stick to issues.

Posted by: mmm | February 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Obamabots?... What do you call the other side then?... Decepticlintons?...

Posted by: R | February 15, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger, I said "mostly" and I also am an Obama supporter. When he speaks about "change, and a different kind of politics", I would hope he is talking about this.

And to you:
One's own flaws (if that's what they are), are always so much worse when encountered in others.

Posted by: | February 15, 2008 07:06 PM
I do not speak hateful about, or to anyone. I never have. I am a very polite person. I posted that to bring to everyone's attention, that to debate is one thing, but none of us, democrate, republican, Obama or Clinton, should said mean hateful things. We have not meet these people, they are all the leaders of our country in one way or the other.

Please debate. That is good. Just the personal slurs on both sides, are hurtful.

Posted by: coffeedrinker | February 15, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse


Well let's start with Hillary's support of her husbands treatment of women. Either she is the most naive woman in the world, which doesn't bode well for her judgment, or she actively supports a man who was a married womanizer for years. Either way, it's not a positive in her column.

You can try to argue that I've bought into the republican smear mongering, etc. The reality is, that's what Bill Clinton says because he is a narcissist and unwilling and unable to truly take responsibility for his abhorrent behavior.

She has continually engaged in unethical behavior during this campaign. Intentionally infusing race into this political campaign in the way she did is immoral, unethical, and abhorrent.

She somehow believes in the fairy tale that Bill will somehow stop his behavior now. If that isn't an indication of poor judgment, I don't know what is.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse


I also want to respond to your comment that we were all better off during the Clinton years. Are you trying to give Bill credit for the tech bubble??? He had nothing to do with the economy and failed to regulate corporate America which resulted in Enron, WorldCom, etc.

Posted by: James Whanger | February 15, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

I think they are both with old baggage and one with a bunch of promises. After voting Demo for 39 years I'm DONE...I WILL NOT VOTE FOR AN AMNESTY CANDIDATE!!!....None of these phonies will respond to the will of the people

Posted by: Harold | February 15, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse


I am not talking about the tech bubble. Although something has to be said about the fact, that the conditions where right for it to happen. In was no accident, as much as that may trouble you.

I travel a lot in my job. I have crisscrossed the globe several times. I have also spend considerable time living in foreign countries. What I recall is America's reputation and standing as a respected and proud nation. Back then, people wanted to come to the US and visit and see for themselves. At the moment, people despise what we have become and how we interact with the rest of the world. What I recall of the 90's is a balanced budget, no national deficit. Less dependant on foreign government's, from whom we have borrowed money. Back in the 90's, I never, in all my time traveling, have I come across an individual or foreign government representative that let me to believe that they did not wanted to do business with the US because of Mr. Clinton and his White House antics . You may not care about these issues. I do. However, given the development and advances of the rest of the world, the United States will very soon be replaced as the leading industrial nation. Once that happens, we will need foreign countries, allies that want to do business with our government and our corporations.
Given all of this, it is very hard to understand that the betterment of the US is being sacrificed because individuals, such as yourself, want payback or revenge. Supporting Mr. Obama is great, for the right reason. So far, I have not come across one. Just because someone is an eloquent speaker and comes across a very personable, does not mean I have to trust him with my lively hoot and more so, with my country.

Posted by: FM | February 15, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes, economic conditions were right in the 1990s for a period of enormous growth, but it had NOTHING to do with the president. There isn't a serious economist in the world that would argue strongly that it was (Rubin might for political reasons, but he knows better). That goes for the balanced budget as well. I'm all for giving credit where credit is due, but giving a president credit for the economic trajectory of the country when he took office goes well beyond intellectual honesty.

I agree whole heartedly that our besmerched international reputation resulted from the Bush administration and NOT from the Clintons. But, I also believe that Obama is the person who can best repair this. The 1990's are over, times have changed, players have changed, issues have changed, dynamics have changed. Furthermore, I believe Hillary's underlying hostility would serve to create more problems than it would solve. Toughness is required, but wrapped in the wrong package it can do more harm than good.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 15, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

I guess that is what I was getting at, to debate the issues is one thing, to attack due to anyones personal life, it not right. Non of us are perfect.

My father cheated on my mother for years. She is an intellegent women, she had a good job. She also had 8 children, a home, and she loved him. She stayed. She stayed and took care of my dad until he took his last breath. She stayed, she often said later in life when us kids would ask her "Why? Why did you stay with him?" She would simply reply, "I loved him, I love you kids, and I loved my family. I did what I thought was best for my family and my children. To tear apart a family, leave them with a weekend dad, is something I couldn't live with." I will not condem another person for doing the same thing. I was not there. I do not live her personal life.

Mr. Obama wants a different kind of politics, I was hoping this was one of the things he was talking about.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Sooooo....... Did Obama get a backroom deal?????? I don't get it.

Plz Respond

Posted by: Hunter | February 15, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Soooooo..... Did Obama do a backroom deal or not??? If he did, what was the deal about? I didn't get it.

Posted by: Hunter | February 15, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

It's also a fact that Mark Penn, of Hillary's campaign, made money last year from Exelon.

Which the Times notes the Clinton campaign conveniently forgot to mention.

Posted by: kravitz | February 15, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

After reading through the ignorance, bigotry, hate, lies, half-truths, innuendos, and outright stupidity displayed on this thread, I have serious doubts this country will make to to the year 2020. Maybe 2012.

Posted by: donjo | February 15, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The February 21st debate should be very interesting. I think Hilary will go for his throat. Will it work? It depends on the merit of her accusations. It has to be done without acrimony. She has to subtly ask the tough points without appearing malicious. He has to challenge her to agree to repeal NAFTA and other trade agreements that ship jobs overseas. He has to challenge her on mandated healthcare. This is an important issue if not only for the fact that Americans want the ability to choose. It is the essence of liberty. One last thing, I wonder about Hilary's decisions to marginalize smaller states that she deems unimportant. I don't think this is smart because not only will she galvanize the Republican party if she is the nominee, but she may cause backlash from the states she didn't think mattered. Also do not be mislead by the higher and record turnouts for Democrats during the nomination process. There may be staunch Republicans who only vote in the general election and will show up to the polls in November.

Posted by: Set | February 15, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

You are not getting a "clean slate" candidate with OBAMA...... The notion that he is not a Washington insider is hysterical.

Posted by: jwsAmerica08 | February 15, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

it seems you americans do not like to see a black president, your racisim is very deep, you are finding reasons to stop Obama from running. Obama represents the rest of the world

Posted by: simblando | February 15, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Why are people dissing the young supporters of Obama as a bunch of brain-washed (college-educated) sheep? Is it because they are playing a large part in Obama's success. Well, well, people seem to forget Bill clinton's first campaign. If you have forgotten, I;ll remind you. He played the sax on Arsenio (I think it was Arsenio but if not then some other late nite show at that time) and he worked MTV. Why else do you think MTV did their Rock the Vote campaign? So it was a stroke of genius for Bill Clinton to get the young generation's support but now that Obama has doen teh same thing that clinton did, he is just a con-man?

Let's not forget Vincent Foster and the way the investigation was bungled (cover-up?). Why were his records in his office removed? Why did Nussbaum, Thomason and Williams remove items from his office before an official investigation. Were they trying to hide something? Would Foster have been privy to classified national intelligence matters? Maybe. But just look at the way the investigation was handled and you can't help but have cover-up cross your mind, and numerous times. And Oswald killed JFK on his own....

Posted by: E | February 15, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

I wish the NYT blogs were as open as the WSJ. They won't accept any posts on Vincent Foster's death. Go figure.

Posted by: E | February 15, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

if hillary dares to attack the second coming, she is vilified. but obama can toss bombs left and right and no one says anything.

the man lied, outright lied, about passing this notification legislation. and we are supposed to look away?

Posted by: Sheri | February 16, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Now that jameswhanger has set forth what he considers examples of Hillary's unethical, immoral and sleazy behavior, you can judge for yourselves the cogency of his response

If we propose to take the government back, it behooves us to cut the slanted trash talk about either candidate and focus on the candidates' abilities, the ssues and the question of electability.

Posted by: mmm | February 16, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse


Who shot Lincoln? I know the books say it was Booth, but we all know that it was Lee Oswald's grandfather.

As for who committed Vince Foster's suicide, I suspect it was Vince Foster, but I could be wrong. Who knows? Maybe it was Jack Kevorkian. Stay tuned.

Posted by: mmm | February 16, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

It is no wonder that Obama won't show up on any of the political shows, except of course NBC's Tim Russerts' and that is because NBC and its affiliates are so very pro Obama.(Actually I haven't seen him on NBC either but certainly not for lack of the promise of red carpet and soft ball questions).
These questions being debated about ethics and Obamas' lack of, are elementary in choosing a candidate one can trust and believe. I find it extraordinary that Obama (who "loves to dance a little side step" ) stays away from one on one question and answer sessions by unbiased reporters, and has repeatedly refused to appear on a number of the Sunday shows. It would be helpful if each of the shows chould report every time he has been asked to appear and refuses. (Hold your breath on that). He goes instead to college towns where he has a naive and willing audience and where he can dispense his cult driven rhetoric with impunity.
Every time someone infers that this guy may not be as pure as Jesus, and may indeed have been involved in shady politics which benefited him personally and which surely benefited him politically, the surrogates come out of the woodwork to defend him.(including the press). They come up with excuses on how he got his house and property in a sweetheart deal with a criminal, why he repeatedly did NOT vote on issues that would have made his backers unhappy when in the Illinois political system, and how he co-ops other peoples ideas because he has no original ones of his own. It seems he never defends himself because he does not appear on any forum that requires it. This person is truly a flash in the pan and I hope that someone who does
real reporting will look at his entire
past record of public service and let us know what they find.(again don't hold your breath).

Posted by: kavanaugh 1 | February 16, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

mmm - Believe what you want, but like I said, the more you read about the facts of the investigation, the more it will leave you scratching your head, well for most intelligent people anyways. Most suicides do not have their bodies lying perfectly on the ground with their arms right by their sides and no blood or organic matter splattered all over the ground. Hmmm autopsy report says no drugs were in the system, yet the FBI a few days later stated that they found traces of some anti-depressant? Why did the Park Police handle the investigation instead of the FBI? Wouldn't Bill Clinton get the FBI to investigate the death of such a "close friend?" And if he shot himself in the mouth, how come his teeth werr not chipped from the kickback? I duuno,maybe instead of tuning out, you should stay tuned in? ;)

Posted by: E | February 16, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

"It's okay when Obama levels charges against Hillary, but as soon as Hillary levels a charge against Obama, all start crying foul. Obama supporters get over yourselves. Obama is not any cleaner than anyone else"

Nord - you give me one example of an incident where Senator Obama leveled charges against Hillary that are even in the same ball park with this crap! Give me his exact words. Make sure it is a charge that is blatantly false and personal in nature. Make it a complete reversal of Senator Obama's prior position on the charge he is leveling. If you can, make it an attack that Senator Obama originated rather than just a response to one of Hillary's attacks. If you can find something that even comes close to matching these criteria (and you won't) we may have something to discuss.

Posted by: diksagev | February 16, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how many private investigators they've hired to dig up dirt on the superdelegates to black mail them into voting for Hillary?

Seriously, I don't stop them at anything, they are corrupt and I voted for him twice, not again, their days are over and they need to move on and quit lying to the American People.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates have the best intentions for our country, but I think their are big differences in style. Our choice is between voting for a candidate who plans to solve our problems for us or voting for one who will inspire our nation to rise up to the great challenges before us. a record number of people have been inspired to participate in democratic primaries this year most. We have a chance to increase each citizen's ownership in their community and in our country. Don't blow it by being cynical.

Peace Out

Posted by: dennism | February 16, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

kavanaugh1 said: "It is no wonder that Obama won't show up on any of the political shows, except of course NBC's Tim Russerts' and that is because NBC and its affiliates are so very pro Obama"

Wrong. Obama was recently interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton aide, on ABC's This Week. This was certainly not a sympathetic interviewer. In addition, Obama was interviewed by Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the nation. Get your facts straight.

"He goes instead to college towns where he has a naive and willing audience and where he can dispense his cult driven rhetoric with impunity."

Wrong. He just gave a speech to GM workers at an automotive plant in Janesville Wisconsin on Feb 13. A tough crowd of blue collar workers, but they loved him anyway. He also gave a speech to Detroit automakers and told them they needed to raise fuel efficiency standards. Another tough crowd. Get your facts straight.

"It seems he never defends himself because he does not appear on any forum that requires it."

Wrong. 18 debates with 2 more to go. Where have you been? Bolivia? Town halls galore answering questions directly from voters, most recently in Wisconsin this week. Geez, are you ever right?

Rick H

Posted by: Rick H | February 16, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Clinton and Obama have over 90% of their platforms in congruence. They are basically the same candidate on platform, so you look for who is better able to lead and work with the world. I believe Republicans will cross the aisle more with Obama than with Clinton and world leaders appear to back Obama slightly more than Clinton. Although her Iraq strategy is better (no timetable for withdrawals), I remember Bubba being a horrible commander in chief (almost as bad as Dubya) and she uses the same advisors.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 16, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

As race and ethnicity enters politics, here is an interesting article talking about how "Indian Americans" view the US elections:

The choice is obvious: Hillary Clinton for democrats. Remember Obama once derided Hillary as "Democrat from Punjab"

Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Not surprisingly, Senator Clinton has chosen to take the low road (again), preferring to lose (or win) without dignity. There are some issues upon which she and Senator Obama can legitimately disagree. This manufactured Exelon matter, however, is not one of them. Senator Clinton's ad is another example of politics as usual. You would think that Senator Clinton would be more inclined to accept Senator Obama's explanation (as well as Senator Boxer's), given her own experience with past political opponents who were all to eager to make "false" claims about her and President Clinton's Whitewater connection. Senator Clinton often wonders why she's such a "lightening rod." Perhaps her willingness to do or say anything to win might be one explanation. She may win this battle ultimately, but it would be a tainted victory. Presidents who lose the respect of the citizenry find it difficult to lead. Just ask George W. Bush.

Posted by: leo2thenet | February 16, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse


It's fine to accept your mother's decision to stay with your cheating father as a personal one, but do NOT try to tell me that it doesn't reflect upon a person's judgment, because it DOES. And, THAT JUDGMENT is an important issue when selecting a president. It isn't JUST personal. It reflects the way in which a person MAKES DECISIONS. Hillary has demonstrated how she makes hers. If she allows Bill to engage in the behavior he does, what makes you think she will make ANY effort to change the way Washington behaves??

Posted by: James Whanger | February 16, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! It's time to go after Obama, since the media fails to ask the tough questions or investigate Obama. What do we really know about him? Not much. The media Obamarama-Oprahlooza promoting him as practically the "second coming". Enough already. Have Oprah call her pal Dr. Philly and they could all work on dealing with the "better angels within them" as the Obamarama likes to get emotional about. Pure drivel.

We are choosing a President of the United States of America not the Oprah self-help book of the month author. Obama is not qualified to be President of the U.S. Hillary Clinton is very qualified to be President and she's very electable.

Hillary Clinton can win in the big states that are must wins for the Dems in November. For example, Ohio loves Hillary, she beats Obama and more importantly, Hillary polls well in Ohio against McCain, while Obama loses to McCain in Ohio polls. It's that simple. Hillary is the strongest candidate in the race, she's battle tested, battle ready, completely vetted, ready to take on the intense rethuglican attack machines that are gearing up.


Posted by: TAH1 | February 16, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

He said/she said, blah blah blah. Of course these companies should take responsibility to notify neighbors of spills/leaks, but if it takes legislation to get that done, then so be it. The thing that is so profoundly disturbing about this entire scenario is that all parties should support a bill that notifies neighbors promptly of a nuclear leak. If it's a Republican that lives nearby, a democrat, an independent, whoever, if you're an American, you absolutely should get notice to get out of dodge and don't drink the water. Why would any self-respecting elected official let their party loyalty get in the way of that? I believe this is a prime example of Obama's message -- partisan politics has forgotten us, the individual Americans. Put them on C-Span, and let the whole world see who, and why, they wouldn't want to protect their own constituentcies.

Posted by: CriticalThinker | February 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

This battle for the Democratic nomination
between Hillary and Barack will not end with a nominee who has used hate as a tool for selection. " Hate is like acid, it can destroy the person on whom its poured but it also destroys the vessle in which its stored"

Posted by: marion | February 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton sets a bad example for women. I'd like to see a woman president, but not this woman. Hillary and Bill are trying to get around the law and have an illegal third term. She cites her years in the White House as experience, but will not release the records of her time in the White House--blaming the National Archives for not releasing them. She cites her White House years as experience, but then denies that it was a co-presidency. Well, she can't have it both ways. She will not release her tax records and says she will release they only after (if) she is nominated. Obama has released his tax records. Hillary seems to think she does not have to abide by the rules, as other do. She tries to change the rules to favor her. She presents herself as "the first woman" to run for president, yet she has been riding her husband's coattails for those famous "35 years" --in Arkansas, in the White House and into the US Senate--all on Bill's coattails. What has she done on her own, except attempt health care reform, which was a disaster. She has less legislative experience that Obama and began her political career riding the wave of her husband's presidency. When she's behind in the polls, she accuses the media of being sexist, and manipulates women into feeling sorry for her. After trying to race bait in South Carolina, she ironically has called on her African American friend, Maggie Williams, to bail out her troubled campaign. Hillary has never worked in the community with blue collar workers and she condescends to poor and working class Americans thinking they will not see through her dirty campaign tricks. We are tired of the Clintons and their ongoing melodrama. I sincerely wish them well--but their time has passed. The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. Bill wants to restore his tarnished presidency, but the American people should not have to pay the price for it. They should have the grace to see that we need to move in a new direction rather than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

Posted by: Margaret D | February 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary gets two Pinocchios while the end of the article said he "mispoke" about his law passing and that it wasn't "Exelon" but the top two who gave money.
Sorry but this Pinocchio assignments are garbage. Where is Obama's for lieing that he passed legislation when he didn't?

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 16, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

tah1- You're wasting your time talking sense to the Obamites. They have already drank the cool-ade. Never-mind that they have no evidence of Hillary wrong doings. Only what the media has "told" them or the right wing nuts have "told " them. Not one concrete misdeed. They will not respond to this.
Did Obama cook a special deal? I don"t know for sure. I do know for sure that Obama has accepted $227,000 in donations from Exelon since 2003. Exelrod, his campaign managrer, was a consultant for Exelon. The campaign said Exelrod and Obama had not talked to each other about Exelon. Obama stated in Iowa that the Exelon Bill was the only neuclear bill he ever passed. It did not pass. It was shelved. An outright lie. Remember the MSNBC debate? Obama and Edwards questioned Clinton's integrity and honesty because she accepted special interest money without a trace of evidence. Exelon sounds like special interest to me. Lying about the bill passing bothers me most. I know it was a lie. I know he said it because I heard it with my own ears. By the way, the campaign failed to answer the NYTimes question about the lie.

Posted by: Chief | February 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

People should fact check washington post fact check. I have seen several false FC's coming from here.

Exelon and Obamas lies of his legislation, and $260,000.00 contributions. reported on NBC and NYTs.

Posted by: sjl106 | February 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

: Margaret D- Let's reverse your question. What experience does Obama have to be president? How is Hillary's pursuit of the presidency "illegal"? Where did you come up with that? You Obamites blow my mind with your non-facts.

Posted by: Chief | February 16, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

James- You ask how do you know Hillary's presidency won't be scandalous like Bill'. My question to You. How do I know Obama's presidency won't be like George's. Didn't he promise change and compassion. At least I have an idea of what hers would look like. (I'll ask you a question I was asked when I was reviling Bill's behavior at my coffee club. A friend asked, "Which of us would have turned her down?") There were 14 of us. I looked around and realized I was the only one who would have turned he down. Sure?

Posted by: Chief | February 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Your trying to equate Mark Penn with Obama? ROFLMAO!!!!!! You obamabites would do anything for a vote. Mark Penn isn't out there lying to voters and claiming to be above it all. Obama is a FRAUD and a LIAR!

Washington Post you need to do a better job on your fact checking page, it almost seems as though you are deliberately misleading people into being against Hillary. Your page has been wrong on several counts in the past.

Posted by: sjl | February 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

To dennism:
You wrote:
Both candidates have the best intentions for our country, but I think their are big differences in style. Our choice is between voting for a candidate who plans to solve our problems for us or voting for one who will inspire our nation to rise up to the great challenges before us.
Excuse me for differing, but at this point in time, I want someone who will go in there and fix the problems any way they can and the sooner the better, pushing them ahead if they have to. Inspiring people to get involved in electing you is fine but then what can you expect? It seems the voice of the people rising up and saying they were tired of Iraq got everyone nowhere. Just what do people expect Obama to do? I am still waiting to hear any specifics with his lack of real Washington experience as to how he plans to change something that has been unchangeable for years and will need a strong willed person to accomplish that. If the same rhetoric from 8 years ago is being now rehashed and different results are to be expected then think again. Just look at how democrats are being bipartisan and voting with republicans to get all the republican agenda passed now. So exactly what is Obama 's bipartisanship going to do to push the democratic agenda? Just look at the events of the last several days and see how willing republicans are to be bipartisan - they are not! I want specifics!!!! I want someone knowledgeable now after these past 8 years, and then maybe I'll go for inspiration in 8 years from now.

Posted by: justmyvoice | February 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"I want someone knowledgeable now after these past 8 years, ..."

* someone knowledgeable enough to vote for the Iraq war despite 35 years of so-called "experience"? This has got to be the one of the worst judgement calls ever, and Hillary has compounded her error by refusing to apologize for it. Even worse, she voted for the war in my opinion for the cynical selfish reason to position herself as a centrist hawk for a run at the Presidency, not out of any consideration whether this was good or bad for the country.

* someone knowledgeable enough to have authored almost no bills of note in her past 7 years in the U.S. Senate? What's she done with all this so-called "experience"? What's she been doing with her time in the U.S. Senate? Oh, raking in $300-$400 million worth of earmarks for her home state. Where are the major pieces of legislation that we'd expect from someone with 35 years of so-called "experience"?

I want someone who has displayed great judgement and foresight when it wasn't popular by risking his career to speak out against the war during one of his campaigns even though 70% of his electorate (Americans in general) supported invasion. I want someone who has demonstrated great character, by giving up fame and fortune after graduating at the top of his class at Harvard to work on the dangerous streets of the South Side of Chicago. I want someone who has had the integrity to refuse special interest money and run his campaign almost entirely on individual contributions, not from lobbyists. I want someone who has the leadership to inspire this country to work together across party lines to achieve common goals. That leader is Barack Obama.

Rick H

Posted by: Rick | February 16, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The Chicago Tribune had an interesting article about how Obama ended up as sole candidate for the state senate seat in 1996: He just went to court a few times and had his competition eliminated on technicalities.

That's not the way an honest person runs for office.

People blame Hillary Clinton for all the evil in the world and claim that she would do anything to win.
But do the same people really think that their champion Obama is any better? I recommened that you all do a little research into the fascinating history of Barack Obama and then either vote Hillary, McCain or undecided...

Posted by: Steve | February 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The forlorn hope of too many bandwagoneers is that Obama will be better at reaching across the aisle to the GOP. And why do they cling to this forlorn hope? Well, Barack Obama told them so.

Hillary is on excellent terms with many in the Senate and there's no reason to believe that she will not be able to reach across the aisle, too. Remember, Hillary has done extremely well among the Republican voters of upstate New York

However, if either of them HAS to reach across the aisle, we will all be SOL. Without solid majorities in both the Senate and the House, neither will be able to change much and their agendas will have as much chance of being enacted as the proverbial snowball in hell.

Floridians and Michiganders, tell this to the DNC:

pass it on on every blog you visit

Posted by: mmm | February 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe you give the Clinton campaign's latest effort only 2 "Pinocchio" heads. Didn't you read your own article?

I'm reading Sally Bedell Smith's "For Love of Politics," a review of the Clintons' 8 years in the White House. I strongly recommend it to anyone who is undecided about whom to support.

Posted by: ally | February 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama exaggerate??? The shining new real deal guy??

Actually this is all no big deal, but when each small exaggeration is tallied to the total, they sooner or later add up to one big lie!

Posted by: autowx | February 16, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Good reporting job.

Obama introduces
legislation to protect citizens, and Hillary turns it into an attack. Typical Karl Rove stuff...again.

Karl Rove tactic means attack your opponent for his strengths.

John Kerry is a war hero, so fabricate accusations concerning his heroism and use it against him.

Obama speaks well, so Hillary implies that people who speak well have no content.

Obama has a charming personality, so call him an empty-headed rock star.

Obama introduces legislation to protect citizens, and actually negotiates to get it through, so call him a sell-out.

This dirty campaigning undermines the meaning of Democracy. And this lifelong Democrat would have a very hard time ever voting for a Clinton again.

Posted by: saraz | February 16, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: barajo | February 16, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

can anybody,and i mean anybody, tell me who barack obama is, what he has done, what his plans are to lead this country and how he plans to do it? the answer is absolutely no!!!!. he talks a good talk and mesmerizes people without saying anything about what his plans are to help anyone. have you ever heard him give direct answers to any question posed to him? too many people are caught up in this euphoria of barack obama's speaking ability and are not listening to what he is saying, which is absolutely nothing other than the word "change". what does he plan on changing? does anyone know? can anyony tell me what it is he plans on changing? perhaps it's the fact that he plans on allowing his muslim brothers to infiltrate our government and eventually take over this country. no, i am not crazy or a fanatic or a racist. i"m just concerned about the fact that so little is known about this individual and the fact that he has come out of nowhere and has been able to raise such large sums of money. where did it all come from? don't even try to tell me it came from individual donors. it came from the muslims who want him in the white house. remember, they have already said they will destroy us from the inside, and with your help they will succeed. just give it some thought and do some research before you succumb to his celebrity. it's all part of the grand scheme. the youth of this country are too easily influenced by his tactics and are being swooned by this con man named barack obama!!!!!

Posted by: philly in pa | February 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Common sense says:

A bill has to pass the Senate committee before it is even voted for on the Senate Floor. In other words Obama wrote a bill. The Bill went to the appropriate committee. The committee passed it on to the Senate. The bill is just sitting waiting to be approved or defeated.

So yes it was passed. But it was not made into a law.

Posted by: Doyaun Stamford, CT | February 16, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, like Bill is a congenital liar.

Posted by: abh | February 17, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

If you Hillary Hustlers are only getting ten cents a blog, try getting an honest job. Open those squinty little pig-eyes to the real world. Looks like (as HRC would say) it's time for a relity check. Your blatant lies about Obama are getting tiresome.

Posted by: CaliGram | February 17, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Who are the cronies controlling Obama?,this puppet empty candidate that has about as much chance as beating McCain as GBW has of solving any problems .

Posted by: sunnymarky119 | February 17, 2008 5:30 AM | Report abuse

This is what I hate most - journalistic spin and bias. The Washington Post to me should be renamed and "The Hillary Spin Post". Please do not assume we the readers are stupid and can't read between the lines. Can you guys just report news and not invent news and spin.

Posted by: Matt | February 17, 2008 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Can someone please advice Hilary Clinton to always get her fact right before facing the Media.

She will only end up having more educated enemies than friends.

Posted by: Tim | February 17, 2008 6:34 AM | Report abuse

So Barrack got $200,000 for regulating his contributor Exelon. I know if someone would put more regulations on my business I would contribute $200,000.

Posted by: mwlvl | February 17, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Isn't $200,000 what Rezko contributed to barrack, I wonder what he got for his money???

Posted by: mwlvl | February 17, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's allegation is wrong timing. She is driving away her supporters by bringing issue like this up at this moment. We expect her to be more constructive while outlining the policy difference between her and Obama.

Posted by: yabinoble | February 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

If she does not bring these things up who will? MSNBC the network that says Ms. Clinton is "PIMPING" for her mother???
Sounds like something that Barrack would say doesn"t it?

Posted by: mwlvl | February 17, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse
Can you believe anything this woman says. She said she would meet with leaders of Iran and the likes and that Bush was wrong for not doing so. When Obama said he would during a debate, she called her naive the next day. She did it in order to differentiate herself and show people that Obama is not ready. Now we have video of her saying she would before. Add to that her lies about Iraq, and her saying that lobbyist are good people who represent (you will laugh at this) THE INTERESTS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse


Attempting to paint Obama as Bush-like is rather hilarious. In fact, one could argue that Hillary is MUCH MORE Bush-like in her personality. She possesses a similar underlying hostility that could easily result in EMOTIONALLY REACTIVE RETRIBUTION and a willingness to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to get elected regardless of the moral or ethical implications.

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

The strangest thing I continue to see is that Clinton has an incredibly intelligent group of people in her campaign that seem unable to learn that the attack politics they grew up with, do NOT work in the current political zeitgeist. It's strange but true. They are betting their entire campaign on them and don't realize that even where they worked in the past, they don't today.

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

All politicians may compromise the terms of a bill based on the political realities at hand. Many may also overstate their accomplishments to make themselves look better. That's politics. To sign on to a bill and later vilify its sponsor when it suits you politically, that's another matter. Most voters will not trace the minutia of the legislative process, but many will buy sound bite attacks crafted to mislead. So, the question is not who's pure and who's evil. It's which candidate is more likely place politics above all in their statements to the public. In this round, Hillary wins that distinction.

Posted by: MShaughn | February 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The more I listen to Hilary Clinton give her speeches across the country lately I can't help but wonder if the only way she can get the nomination is by throwing dirt in Obama's direction. Doesn't say much for the next president I want in office.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, forgot to add my name to the post above I made.

Another thing that will be interesting to watch is if Hilary Clinton can find it in herself to continue with her campaign without resorting to a boxing gloves mentality.

Posted by: Sammy2008 | February 17, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

If attack ads did not work why did Obama use them in S.C.

Posted by: mwlvl | February 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary does not have dig up dirt. Barrack history with criminals, and backroom deals with Exelon are enough. Barrack is lying about his dealings "I only worked 5 hours" for Rezko is "lame". The trial starts in March the day before the Ohio/Texas primaries. Wait until he rolls over and tell all about Barrack. I can hardly wait. As a Obama supporter you know all of this "right".

Posted by: mwlvl | February 17, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse


That's funny how you preface an attack with a justification of it. And, more to the point, defending oneself from an attack strategy levelled by the Clintons is VERY different from INITIATING the attack strategy.

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse


It just the facts people give don't give you $200,000 just for working for them "5 hours" or for regulation their business (Exelon).

Posted by: mwlvl | February 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

It is not only in Illinois Legislature, that Sen Barack Hussein Obama missed a lot of voting.

He and Sen McCain voted less in the US Senate than Sen Clinton.

Sen Clinton actually have guts to vote more than these gents. She is less talk than Sen Barack Hussein Obama. She is more of a doer exactly the same as Pres Bill Clinton.

I can not fathom, why Sen Barack Hussein Obama is belittling Pres Bill Clinton Legacy as the Democratic answer to Republican mismanagement. Sen Barack Hussein Obama wants us to elect him for his rethorics of hope? He is our hope then? You actually have to work on your goals not just hope. Show us the money, Sen Barack Hussein Obama.

It is becoming a very close and contentious Primary. Eventually, it would be clear enough, that all the large states that matter to the democrats come general elections, will count on to Sen Clintons side. Including Florida and Michigan.

Not the red states crisscrossing to Sen Barack Hussein Obama, and then vote for McCain come November.

If Sen Barack Hussein Obama miscalculated of not having his name in Michigan, only Florida should have counted for him.

He should have been ready from day one, that he needs to have his name not only in Florida but Michigan too to have those delegates.

All votes should be counted. Millions of voters from Michigan and Florida should not be disenfranchised. Counting them out, is tantamount to suicide and revenge, hence turning over Michigan and Florida to the Republicans.

Posted by: thefreeliving | February 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Get your Pinnocchio nose meter ready.

Obama was quoted to have said, "My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success." If that were true why as a child did his family and friends in Hawaii call him Barry?

The fact is that he was named Baraka Hussein Obama after his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Actually, the etymology of the East African name Baraka, means "white one" Speaking to an elderly Jewish audience during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama linked the linguistic root of his East African first name Barack to the Hebrew word baruch, meaning "blessed." So I guess he prefers the Hebrew meaning, especially when speaking to a Jewish audience. I don't blame him. But wouldn't it be more honest to have just said, "I was named after my father" and just leave it at that. I discovered a fascinating investigative report printed in the Chicago tribune on March 25, 2007 that you must read, especially if you think honesty is an important character trait for the next President.,0,5069625.story?page=1 What Bill Clinton said about Obama's tendency to tell fairytales turns out to be true after all. I think the guy has an identity disorder.

Posted by: Ariadne Green | February 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse


Perhaps not, but to argue that a campaign donation is prid pro quo for something is dishonest. If that's the case: Would you care to make a list for Bill & Hillary Clinton's donors? What about Enron??

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse


You might want to look at this article as well.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Obamanation
This seems relevant but what do I know.

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon.
:end quote

So was one of Clinton's chief political strategists, Mark Penn.

What is your point, or are you just full of pointless innuendo?

Posted by: TiredOfBillary | February 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

aridne green posted:

If that were true why as a child did his family and friends in Hawaii call him Barry?

The fact is that he was named Baraka Hussein Obama after his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Actually, the etymology of the East African name Baraka, means "white one"
:end quote

His nickname was "Barry"? LOL...guess you got him there! Psssst....rumor has it that he said he wanted to be President in Kindergarten too.

In the east African language Kiswahili, "baraka" means blessing.

Where did you get all of these stupid, hateful lies from?

It is really easy to check on things in the Information Age.

Posted by: Absolute 0-K | February 17, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse


Keep it up. It's that type of distortion that has been driving Clinton supporters into Obama's camp. Have you learned nothing from the first part of this campaign??

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

These types of things are hilarious. It seems the Clinton campaign believes people are stupid. They aren't. Fortunately for Obama, the more they do it, the more people switch to Obama.

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

This opinion piece by Michael Gerson sums up an increasing number of Democrats reactions to the Clinton campaign quite nicely.

Posted by: James | February 17, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Record turnout for the Democratic primaries, why is that? Has Obama tapped into something; a message that is talking to everybody, hence more people getting involved? Or is because of women wanting to back Hillary? I don't think so, women have been voting for awile.

Also, see below from the L.A. Times. A superdelegate in PA. Interetesting reason to vote for "experienced" Hillary.

"Carol Ann Campbell, a superdelegate from Philadelphia, Campbell said in an interview she was "somewhat" leaning toward Clinton.

"Not so much because of her," she said, "but because of her husband. A brilliant man."

see the difference in supporters:

Clinton supporter:

Posted by: GeeMoney | February 17, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

No back room deal? No one knows. But we all see that there is a Front-Room-Deal. A legilature written to deny local and state authority to oversight, and receive handsome campaign contributions from both the CEO of Exolon and the Lobbyists for Neclear Institute. What other proofs do you need?

Posted by: sangliu | February 17, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

** Man files Federal Lawsuit against Obama regarding GAY sexual and drug use claims **

A man named Larry Sinclair posted a video to YouTube claiming to have used cocaine and engaged in a gay sexual act with Obama when Obama was a state legislator in 1999.

In the video, Sinclair claims he and Obama met on two separate occasions, that Obama used crack cocaine and that Sinclair performed an oral sexual act on Obama both evenings.

Now Obama and company are quickly trying to quiet this man, but Sinclair has filed a federal lawsuit. Sinclair filed suit against Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod in Minnesota district court for allegedly attempting to abridge Sinclair's right to free speech, and for waging an intimidation campaign against him.

check out the video on youtube for yourself:

This has also been covered by The Smoking Gun but no one else.

America wants to know: where's the media coverage on this???? We deserve to hear the truth!

Posted by: Jack | February 17, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

In addition to being disturbed by the Obama campaign's willingness to accept such huge amounts of money in campaign contributions from U.S. nuclear industry executives, U.S. anti-war activists also have another concern. Why did Mr. Obama decide to appoint a former board member of Superior Bank (whose 2001 collapse--due to the bank's policy of engaging in subprime mortgage lending and predatory lending--cost U.S. taxpayers $440 million), Penny Pritzker, to be the Obama campaign's national finance chair? See the Nov. 8, 2002 article about the Superior Bank S&L Scandal that appeared in In These Times at the following link:

Posted by: bob f. | February 17, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Senior Exelon executives have contributed more than $160,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and $46,000 to his 2004 Senate run--that speaks for itself.Are you follower of a cult?

Posted by: abc | February 17, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse


Hillary Rove is at it Again.

Nafta, Shmafta!

Iraq War, Iraq S'more!

Honor, Shmonor!

Truth, Shmooth!

Hillary Rove is at it Again.

Hillary Rove is at it Again.

Hillary Rove is at it Again.


Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 18, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Senators and Representatives will know the truth which is that Obama did nothing wrong. Boxer and Durbin support Obama, no one is defending Clinton.

This not a good way for Hillary for to influence her fellow legislators, all of whom are superdelegates.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

i would like to explain why if obama gets the nomanation i will be voting for mccain i am a democrat but i beleive america will be in great harm if obama is elected first is his inexperience next is his dealings with a criminal rezko but the thing that troubles me the most about obama as a white person is the church obama belongs to the church is racist and so is its pastor his pastor and church honors and praises the worst racist in america farrakhan who preaches that all white people and jews should be destroyed if you dont know who he is you need to look him up what if as a white person i attended a church that praised and honored the leader of the klu-klux clan or the leader of the skin heads you would call me a racist doesnt this make obama a racist if not you white obama supporters explain to me why what if hillary belonged to a church like this obama supporters would be calling her a racist right i would like for obama white supporters to explain to me why he is not a racist and tell me why his belonging to this church is not wrong you cant thats why if hillary doesnt get the nomanation i will vote for mccain and when white obama supporters tell me i am betraying my party i will tell them i had rather betray my party then betray my country my country america is more important than my democratic party i feel obama supporters are betraying their country when they support him because he is a racist and is not qualified to run the country and no way do i want to put the safety of my country in his hands i care more about america than this his inexperience could cause great harm to americans safety

Posted by: linda | February 18, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

You wrote: "In May, Obama put a temporary hold on a Bush administration appointee to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because he was unsatisfied with his answers on the notification issue."

Would you mind providing more explantion about this? The "he" and "his" refers to whom--Obama or the administration appointee? What were the answers? And, by the way, where is your editor?

Posted by: Loomis | February 18, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Would you please make sure Post media columnist Howard Kurtz reads this Fact Check. In today's Media Notes, he mentions "Obama watering down a bill affecting a nuclear power company that contributed to his campaign." This is clearly not what happened.

Posted by: Robert Bott | February 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: joanthebaptist1 | February 18, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

THERE IS NO CHANGES WITH OBAMA EXCEPT THE MEDIAS HELP AT HIDING HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WAR AND BUSH. WHAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE AFRAID TO REALIZE. "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."Obamas record shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, human food or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace and voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions.Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. **He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions.

Posted by: rozz62 | February 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are liars? Shocking.

Posted by: hillaryis44 | February 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama has not taken the high road - he has put on the smoke screen of the high road. His campaign plays dirty politics and he presents the illusion of clean hands. He has deliberately misrepresented Clinton's health care plan, stating that his covers more Americans when the fact, according to nearly every expert, is that Obama leaves 15 million out. He mischaracterizes votes in the senate and quite honestly has no record to run on. I challenge any Obama supporter to list six substantive national accomplishments Obama has made in his two years (since he's been campaigning the past two for president) in the Senate. If Obama is the nominee, I fear we'll have at least four more years of republican rule in the White House. Obama hasn't remotely been vetted. So sad people have fallen for his glorious, empty speeches. Wake up America before it's too late...

Posted by: Eric | February 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Biggest non-issue ever. It's easy to see Obama as a boy wonder, or the man that can do no wrong, mainly because, how much do we really know about him? Well, besides the fact that he is omniscient and will change 250+ years of government the second he is elected.

Posted by: J | February 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"Give me one instance where a woman's hand lifted a great nation to enhanced prominence? I'm waiting ... "

um ... Queen Elizabeth I, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Corazon Aquino . . .

YEAH, I said great civilizations: Everybody knows Queen Elizabeth is puppet and the British Parliment makes all the decision. That doesn't constitute leadership. The Phillipines is hardly state, let alone an empire. Indira Ghandi did not lead an empire, a country with established power-- India's economy completely collapsed under her leadership-- And Isreal, give me a break, that experiment in building a nation out of a strip of desert has been a failed project funded by billions of US tax dollars since its inception-- Isreal is more a basket case of unending violence than a nation poised to expand and truly expand the world.

Like I said, show me a woman that lead an empire to its greates heights ...

And like I said, the sign of the decline of any great world power occurs when the men are too weak to lead, only then are women FREE to take the reigns of power. If she wins it will mark America's inevitable decline.

Posted by: Draper | February 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Exelon is Obama's 4th largest campaign contributor. The people of that town are very disillusioned with him. He did water down the language from must report to recommend they report. Most important, he claimed in a recent speech that he "passed" this legislation. He is full of it. I should know; I voted for him.

Posted by: Catherine, Chicago | February 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

What gratuitous slime from the Clinton campaign. People are finally starting to see through the Clinton mantra: she's NOT experienced, she's NOT competent, and she's NOT ready on "day one". She has NEVER successfully amended ANY bill during her time in the Senate. She was crushed when she tried to reform health care. Her campaign has squandered huge initial advantages by resembling Brownie's FEMA. The experience she does have strongly indicates that she will NOT be an effective executive.

Thus, she digs up poorly-founded accusations a day before the election to try to swing things her way. News flash: if Hillary were to be convicted for everything that someone alleged she'd done, without having serious proof, she'd be doing plenty of hard time. This article highlights her blatant hypocrisy: if she doesn't want people making unfounded allegations against her, DON'T MAKE THEM AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE!

Posted by: unitedstatesofamerica1 | February 18, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama's WISCONSIN SERMON # 67,883

What a whiner. Mr. Obama is taking a little bit of scrutiny and he's on TV from Wisconsin right now whining about it. Wants us to turn the page... you bet he does.

Wah wah wah. So very Presidential.

Oh brother. What a ride he'd be in for with the Republicans.
Knock him right off his float DAY ONE.

Now he's admitting plagiarism but is saying it doesn't matter... oh, yes, we should blindly believe and agree with anything his says. That'll be a great President to deal with.

He'll be as ineffective ad Duval Patrick as well.

Mr. Obama doesn't DRAW crowds - he goes TO THEM, to our "Starbucks latte" youth/children mostly- while they are at school -- as their ridiculed "Dunkin Donut, Lunch Bucket Democrat" parents are off at work paying for their education.

Posted by: Thinkerr | February 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Sleaze, i.e., Hilliary makes unsubstantiated accusations one day before the vote in order to win unethically.
This is her style

Posted by: FredM55373 | February 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse






Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The French have a saying,"The man who searches behind the bedroom door for his wife's secret lover every time he comes home--has hidden there himself."

The Lady doth protest too much.

Posted by: JaxMax | February 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Lady Macbeth is running out of arguments ....
Obama will receive the nomination, and that is that.

Posted by: Helene | February 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse



Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife.
Last year, Rita Rezko sold a strip of that vacant lot to Obama for $104,500 -- a deal Obama later apologized for, acknowledging that people might think he got a favor from Rezko. Obama called the episode "boneheaded'' and a "mistake.''


Posted by: samrlim | February 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

This is another example of the hope and change being a lot of feathers but not much chicken. This attempt to bring change by "bring people together & crossing the ailse resulted in Barack "trying his best to get the legilation passed" what actually happened is NOTHING. Other than he claimed that got the legislation passed. Absolute baloney

Posted by: stu | February 18, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Look, I like Hillary fine, I'm not impressed with her resume, or her calculated "hawk" façade and subsequent position on Iraq, or her unwillingness to address her position on Iraq, or her plan to garnish wages so she can claim better health-insurance coverage (that one was pretty bad, you gotta admit), and she actually has less legislative experience than Obama. She's hated and divisive. But I don't knock her in any way, she's just not my first choice (or second...)She is angry, Bill is angry, they are desparate and will do or say anything to win. But I'm sure she's very nice.

I do absolutely believe if Hillary gets it, McCain is in. I can't tell you how many democratic and democratic-leaning friends have said they'll vote cross to the dark side rather than vote for Clinton. Their reasons usually boil down to either the Hate thing, or a variation on the Definition of Insanity theme

Posted by: Oh, Hillary... | February 18, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you????

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:

1. As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over healthcare reform, a
process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill
Bradley and Pat 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.

2. 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, and then she chose Janet Reno.
Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake."

3. Hillary recommended Lani Guanier to head the Civil Rights Commission.
When Guanier's radical views became known, she had to withdraw her name.

4. 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.

5. 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
the White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him.
(FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee
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 30 years.)

6. In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends, the
Harry 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 30-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.

7. Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption
squad" and scandal defense; urging her husband not to settle the Paula
Jones lawsuit; refusing to release the Whitewater documents, which led
to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor after $80 million
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).

8. Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of
the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for
example, the First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each
year) was decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic
ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists'
depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

- 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

- 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, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family.

Make sure America remembers.

Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you????

Posted by: Cherrypicker | February 18, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary supporters are you looking at your candidate of choice? Let's summarize.

She says she is the most experienced. She mis-managed her money within months and almost went broke.

Her staff are in discord.

She still mis-judges her missions and falls short before completion.

She goes back on her word without remorse.

She leaves out pertinent information which may hurt you up the road (garnishment of your wages).

She incites guilt to get your vote (e.g. remember when I did this for you? or remember in 1990 when Bill did this for you? or remember I am woman just like you?).

She makes you doubt your own self to believe she and her insurance donaters are the only way you will have sense to get affordable insurance.

She fight, fight, fight (usually over petty issues) and is not getting anything done for herself. Isn't she doing the same thing you are sick of in the White House?

Haven't she proven that the inexperienced Obama has shown more experienced and better management of his affairs in the execution of his campaign?

Now go and vote.

Hillary nope, you won't kill my Hope.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

i could just cry.


Posted by: gunvor_steele | February 18, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should remember that irrelevant and misrepresentation of Obama's legislative record only hurts her campaign more than it helps her. This was demonstrated in South Carolina. I wish she would stop doing that. It's getting to be very irritating, and it's driving away us honest Independents trying to do the right thing for the country by voting for a Democrat.

Posted by: kflee | February 18, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in the pocket of so many people who have given him favors, that he will never, ever, be able to be an independent politician. I don't trust him any further than Ted Kennedy can carry him.
Stealing other peoples speeches (and this latest is just one of a long line of plagiarisms that has become SOP for him. I heard Obama say "I have a dream" at the beginning of a speech without giving credit to MLK) as though he originated the phrase right off the top of his head. (The college kids ate it up). What arrogance. This is just one more thing that suggests this guy will stoop to any level to gain traction with certain groups. He relegated any suggestion of plagiarism to "not important" status. He also plagiarizes Hillary's well thought out policy statements, because he has so pitifully few of his own, and tells tall tales about where she stands on other issues. Of course he gets a free pass because the press(with a few exceptions like the Pinocchio Awards) are too lazy or too cowed by the potential of being labeled racist, to hold his feet to the fire. Surprise, surprise, reporters have had no such reluctance with Hillary- and like Tim Russert of NBC seems to take great delight(and with obscenely smirking countenance) in blasting her personally and with obvious sexist relish. Why is Matthews and his cohort, who made such disparaging remarks about Chelsea, not following in the trajectory of the guy who
made the remarks about the girls basketball team. All of them are way, way, out of line, but only the one who got
punished was the one who made the raciest remark. Did I miss something or isn't sexism also a no, no. But wait, this is about Hillary so anything goes, right?
Matthews has stopped being provocative, and has become a pitiable figure that needs someone to tell him to see a doctor.

Posted by: kavanaugh 1 | February 18, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

This thing about Exelon after the Rezco affair is another evidence that shows Sen. Obama is nothing but a common politician. He promised to change Washington but he will just replace it with "Chicago Style " of dealing with influence buyers, as if there is a difference. Those fanatics who were mesmerized by the rhetoric of this man will be in for a surprise when he becomes the nominee. you won't know what hits you when the republican attack machine is done with your hero. Good luck to all of you fools.

Posted by: tim | February 18, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

All this Obama thing is only a good plan to keep the republican at white house.

Obama has no slight chance in the general election.

He will make a mockery of himself and Democratic Party in the general election.

Vote for Obama, this is exactly what corporate media and republicans want.

Do you think they are willing to let go of the power and its financial benefits easily.

Look in the past, when was the second time they have ever supported a left liberal candidate before.

Once Obama gets the nomination they start a swift boat campaign you haven't seen the like before.

They know, after all the corruption and incompetence they have brought to this country, they have zero chance in the general election, unless to promote a candidate like Obama.

A candidate who thinks acting like JFK and revibrating the air in his throat like MLK or preparing for speeches for hourse is enough to win the elections.

Don't be fooled by the polls that Media publishes everyday, trying to convince you that Obama has a better chance in the general election against Mccain. Who has verified those polls.

A very tiny fraction of the Republican-minded Independents and Republicans (compared to the whole electorate) vote for Obama in primaries exactly for the same reason that Media is giving him a free ride.

They know Clintons are very resilient people, they have defeated them twice already.

Don't be fooled by the slogans like "Obama will bring us together."
How in a right mind someone might think an ultra liberal will bring parties together.

Any thing was achieved in this country in the past was for the efforts of the moderate of both parties who were willing to compromise.

Don't lose an election that Republican has already lost.

Posted by: READ THIS CAREFULLY | February 18, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I sure am looking forward to having Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

Why you ask?

Well, because we get to be reminded of all of Bill's infidelities, and maybe we get to see a few more sexual harrassment victims paraded out.

We get to see the Monica Lewinsky embrace over and over again. And we get to experience the oldies but goodies of Linda Tripp and Ken Star, Whitewater and Travelgate, Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, Vince Foster and the infamous blue dress. And who can forget those riveting impeachment hearings.

We'll get to hear more about questionable fundraising-- maybe the Clintons will sell sleep over nights in the White House again.

I know I'm missing a whole bunch of fun and intriguing facts, but don't worry, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Fox News, and all our "friends" on the right will be there to remind us over and over again.

But seriously, I don't know why the Clintons are beloved figures in the Democratic Party. They are responsible for the backlash that gave us Bush in 2000. The Clintons did so much damage with with their personal behavior that it is primarily their fault there were less Democrats in elected office in 2000 than in 1992. They didn't grow the party, they sucked the life out of it.

My question is-- why does anyone think it is going be any different?

Bill and Hillary Clinton's behavior is unconscionable. The Clinton's don't have the country's best interest in mind; they don't care what is best for the Democratic Party; they care about what is best for the Clintons.

They are Karl Rove in Democratic clothing. Look at their recent behavior. They are masters of manipulation, skilled in the arts of distortion, deception, and the politics of personal destruction. And if you call them on it then you are ganging up on them.

People, listen up! This is only going to get worse. They use to hold the title of the most divisive forces in American politics. I would put them second behind Bush for now, but stay tuned; they will reclaim the title if they continue on their current trajectory.

Why do you think all the Republicans had been focused on her? Because they want her to be the nominee. Half of the country will not vote for her! And after the Clinton's unconscionable, shameless behavior, can you blame them?!

If you want the country to stay in Iraq for 100 years and continue the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration, then make the Clintons the Democratic nominee because the Republican will win in November.

Oh, and as an added "bonus", if you want to give the Republicans a chance to take back the House and Senate, make the Clintons the nominee. Making the Clintons the nominee will be the best thing for the Republican Party.

Folks, it doesn't have to be that way.

Vote for someone who can build a broad coalition to solve some of our nations most pressing problems. Vote for someone who has demonstrated the right kind of experience and judgement. Someone who is intelligent, who inspires, who builds up as opposed to tears down.

Vote for Barack Obama!

Instead of listening to the deception and distortion put out by the Clinton machine, examine his record and his positions at the source, Or read his book "The Audacity of Hope."

It would be truly tragic for our country if we go "Back to the Future" with a third Clinton administration and continue 4 more years of gridlock, infighting, partisan bickering, and politics of personal destruction. But I guess we can always look at the bright side; we might finally find out what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Posted by: Jeff | February 19, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't call Obama a dishonest person. Its Hilary that is starting to bring the more dirty side of politics in, without backing up her words. Her campaign doesn't, right now, have the muscle to back up the stuff she is saying.

Posted by: Paul | February 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

How about checking THESE Nuclear FACTS & Report back on it:

Obama voted FOR H.R. 6, in 2005 (nicknamed The Cheney Energy Bill) which ENABLED the nuclear industry to make PLANS to build 29 new nukes in the U.S. --- AFTER 30 YEARS of no new nukes being built ---- because the banks would not loan money to build nuclear power plants ... too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill SOLVED that PROBLEM for the nuke industry by decreeing that U.S. Taxpayers would GUARANTEE PAYBACK of those nuke loans. Obama Voted FOR it DESPITE the FACT the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) rated the risk of default on those nuke loans AT 50% OR GREATER!
(Can you say ... another SUBPRIME-NOT Creditworthy debacle?)

The New York Times has published several articles about those 29 Planned new nukes & in one of those articles published a map showing the locations of all 29 of them.

3 Consortiums will be participants; among the Corporations ... Planning to Profit mightily ... with ZERO Risk ... are GE, Westinghouse, Excelon, and Entergy.

GE OWNS NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse OWNS CBS. I found the above information AFTER Searching for the reason WHY MSNBC/NBC began engaging in outright PROPAGANDA Promoting Obama & slamming the Clintons.

I was not the only one who NOTICED --- a whole lot of people posted their complaints about MSNBC's OUTRAGEOUS "coverage" POSING as "News" - on media matters website.

A guest pundit on MSNBC (Craig Crawford) summed it up ACCURATELY & HONESTLY when he said on the air: "I just have to say this Clinton-Bashing has gotten SO FAR OUT THERE - it verges on INSANITY!

Now, IF you THINK new nuclear power plants are a Good Thing ... just go look up: Nuclear Waste Dumps; Hanford, Washington, Rocky Flats, Colorado, Barnwell, S.C. ... & you will discover a 50+ year nightmare wherein the U.S. govt. has been 'supposed to be" cleaning up the mess .... & STILL hasn't done so.

Next, consider how "upset" GWB professes to be at the THOUGHT of Iran getting a few pounds of plutonium ... WHEREAS all they have to do is STEAL some of the 140 TONS of plutonium stored in old dilapidated buildings at Rocky Flats. Then consider how many RPG's it would take for a terrorist to make a state or two uninhabitable ... by blowing up the drums of Nuke waste being "temporarily" stored onsite at every nuke plant in the U.S.

& then .... go look up ... the highest electricity rates in the country AND HOW MANY BILLIONS the U.S. Govt. (US Taxpayers) is spending every year on subsidizing and supporting the Nuclear Industry.

Hillary Clinton Voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill & said her energy plans do not include Nuclear --- that's WHY GE/MSNBC is slamming her On TV everyday all day long.

GE, Excelon, et. al. are guilty of attempting to SUBVERT a Presidential Election by PASSING OFF ... extreme money-motivated greed ... turned into PRO-OBAMA Propaganda .... AS NEWS. That's TREASON & every "corporate executive" involved in it should be HANGED, or guillotined.

Obama is a serial liar AND THIS FACT
CHECKER needs to go LOOKUP ... the BIG Fairytale he told in a speech when national leaders gathered at Coretta King's funeral: i.e. that he was conceived as a result of his parents getting together at the time of the civil rights March across the Pettis Bridge: a LIE because his Birhdate is Several Years WRONG for that Fairytale.

He lied when he said - he didn't have anything to do with real estate when he was employed at the law fim that was involved with Rezko's real estate fraud (Chicago Sun Times Articles) .... because ... on a document Obama was circulating at that time regarding his "Background" ... he wrote: High-Level REAL ESTATE FINANCING.

He lied when he was campaigning in Nevada ... when he said he PASSED legislation requiring the Nuclear Industry to Immediately Notify Local Authorities of any leaks of nuke materials. He did not get that Legislation PASSED. He lied because the Nevada Voters are opposed to the Feds siting a nuke waste dump in Nevada.

He's PROJECTING ... when he says: Hillary will do & say anything to get elected."

He is NOT the Future ... He's in league with the PAST --- PUSHING OLD Obsolete nuclear power plants....for the corporate elite.

McCain OR Obama if elected President will make YOU pay dearly for those 29 new nukes.

Posted by: elme13 | February 19, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Well documented elme. The Obama cult has distorted so many facts, blaming it on republicans or usually its all Hillarys campaigns fault.He has a rather seedy/unclean past with Chicago politics , No doubt if he gets the nomination he will blame the Clintons for every bad news story

Posted by: sunny marky | February 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

How did we go from was there a backroom deal, to a lack of legislative accomplishment?

Classic bait and switch, change the goalposts...

Tell, what are the rules of the game?

or are we not playing by rules?

Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition to me....

Posted by: FC is a HACK | February 21, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Excellent analysis, with much appreciated facts and objectivity. You think Obama wouod dare refute this? Ha! My guess? If anyone asks him abiout this, he'll throw another one of his little tantrums, blaming the media for believing they're against Hilllary, then storm off. Vote Hillary -- before it is too late!

Posted by: Face it Obamidiots | March 6, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

dvpagof vfdltwz jgaltpq unagryeo yocgfl apezr qjklwec

Posted by: hnxwzi eqlifv | April 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

rmnfvbxps sfdt qrsgijl snvqa shjv svdz rvtamkjhq kzwgd twic

Posted by: ickrxp aycd | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

rmnfvbxps sfdt qrsgijl snvqa shjv svdz rvtamkjhq kzwgd twic

Posted by: ickrxp aycd | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

rmnfvbxps sfdt qrsgijl snvqa shjv svdz rvtamkjhq kzwgd twic

Posted by: ickrxp aycd | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

njfe ibtqwck sxlnjpi
50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

njfe ibtqwck sxlnjpi
50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

twagrkm drvoi mnuiy vkdcept
propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

sjalq eiqm zlvfdnk
buy levitra in uk

Posted by: buy levitra in uk | August 16, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

hxiz miopbx ahms
pictures of paxil rash

Posted by: pictures of paxil rash | August 16, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

oecjdht mlea
detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

oecjdht mlea
detox and cymbalta

Posted by: detox and cymbalta | August 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

wvjra khqjfzi
paxil lawsuit wisconsin

Posted by: paxil lawsuit wisconsin | August 17, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: seroquel deaths pancreatitis | August 18, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: seroquel deaths pancreatitis | August 18, 2008 4:59 AM | Report abuse

rlsv vkixwgr xshfbg zodxysl
herbal hair loss solution

Posted by: herbal hair loss solution | August 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

widln xzkrl fawcb
hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: hair illinois loss treatment | August 18, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

taper off paxil

Posted by: taper off paxil | August 21, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company