Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tom Cole's Downsizing of Obama

It's no secret that Republicans feel they'd have a better shot of taking out the baggage-laden Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general presidential election than her fresh-faced primary opponent, Barack Obama.

But the spin is getting more interesting all the time, especially as one new poll shows Obama -- who fares better among independent voters than Clinton -- with a stronger chance to defeat John McCain in November.

This morning, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, painted Obama as the weaker of the two Democratic primary candidates -- precisely because of that fresh face and a more liberal voting record than Clinton.

In criticizing Obama, Cole went directly to an issue that really resonates with certain voters: size.

"I do not see (Obama) as some 9-foot tall, overwhelming candidate," Cole said during Tuesday's American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast.

It's the downsizing of Obama, who, his campaign tells us, is 6 feet, 2 inches tall. Not exactly a shrimp.

"Senator Obama may only be 6'2, but it's clear that Tom Cole is still scared of running against a candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the start and has fought for important ethics and lobbying reforms," says Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

The American Spectator writes on its blog that Cole described Obama as a "phenomenon," but predicted the current level of enthusiasm for Obama would shrink once he faces a "tested politician like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)." Cole also said Obama has the "thinnest public resume of any presidential candidate since Wendell Willkie."

Hmm, who's afraid of Barack Obama?

By Mary Ann Akers  |  February 12, 2008; 2:15 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John Kerry's SUV Hybrid Sitting On Used Car Lot
Next: Jewish Rep. Cohen Battles Antisemitism and Racism In Re-Election


I couldn't disagree more. I'm a white male republican from Texas, now living in Colorado. I've voted Republican in every election for the past 20 years.

This election, I plan on voting for Obama. But if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for whatever schmuck the Republicans put on stage.

I believe Republicans--and even some independents and democrats--will come out in droves to make sure we don't have another Clinton in the White House.

To me, that makes Barack Obama the stronger candidate...not Hillary.

Posted by: Tim | February 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

@Tim: if it comes to that (God forbid), please write-in Obama rather than casting a vote to legitimize the shredding of our Constitution.

Posted by: Tim B | February 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Tim B, stop pissing all over the constitution. If you use it for toilet paper, why do you mind it being shredded? Because it gets the shredder dirty?

Posted by: Mrs B | February 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

whistling in the dark. Obama has a great track record of wooing over Republicans in the Illinois Legislature, a non-ideological attitude to getting things done--and enraging some of the old Black Caucuses in the legislature by his reasonable approach to problems. This is true Independent thinker rather than the bogus Mc Cain that played dead and fell in behind W when a real issue came along. No suprise that Cole is terrified.

Posted by: jameschastain5 | February 12, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the correct phrase is "whistling past the graveyard". Either way, I concur.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Ah, you want experience?? How about Dick Cheney and Rummy?? Now those two had resumes. No, no, no. Its character and wisdom. And intelligence does not hurt. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. Could have been an Supreme Court Clerk and made mucho dinero. Instead he went to the south side of Chicago to help poorer people.

Hey, if Obama had lost 5 states in a row you can bet the Clintons would have been shouting "its time for him to withdraw for the good of the party"

Finally, Obama is not a winter wonder. He will overwhelm McCain just as he has Clinton.

I worked for JFK and this guy is the closet thing to him. I am happy for the younger generation that they can feel the way we did from 1960 to November, 1963.

Its just a matter of time. Bye Hillary.

Posted by: dennis E | February 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Whistling in the dark and whistling past the graveyard are both valid expressions and could be used in this instance.
In any case, it is good to see the fear among Republicans having to face Barack Obama. He is formidable on both the intellectual and emotional levels. And, yes, he has worked very well across the aisle. Even Peggy Noonan likes him!!!

Posted by: Richard McDonough | February 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

As a registered republican I feel the same as Tim. I am worried about the future of American and the sell-off of our quality of life by both parties and all candidates. Barak Obama is campaigning on change and change is what we need. The republicans have violated our trust and sold off and out the middle-class for money and favors and I would rather vote for Obama than put another one of you traitors in office. He deserves the same chance we gave you to prove whether he is worthy of our trust and sincere about change.

Posted by: Frank | February 12, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh and by the way he spoke to the church in Atlanta where MLK stated his civil rights work, during the speech he sought to unify and not devide with fear or race and he spoke truth to all sides black, brown, yellow, white and said we all have to lay aside differences and unify to reclaim America -

All I have heard the republicans do is try to devide us with fear, what we should fear is them allowing all our jobs to go abroad and give us Walmart to replace them.

Posted by: Frank | February 12, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

you people should give hillary a break and stop whinning like high school kid.........

Posted by: jame | February 13, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Interesting, I voted Republican since Reagan. This president has done such a poor job that I am converting to vote for Obama....I believe alot of Republicans are shifting to the other side.

Posted by: Mr. P | February 13, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Obama took the votes of Independents in Virginia from Hillary by a margin of 2 to 1, just as he will against McCain.

When Obama, who will have a 10 to 1 fundraising edge, starts blanketing the country with ads featuring the clip of McCain saying we could be in Iraq for 50, 100, even 10,000 years...

All he will have to do is put an image of McCain looking all Gen. Jack D. Ripper from "Dr. Strangelove", with a graphic that reads:

"McCain Iraq Exit Date - The Year 12009".


Posted by: filmex | February 13, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I donated for the 3rd time tonight to Senator Obama's campaign. While I am a consistent voter, I've not been a large contributor until this season with Senator Obama in the race.

We need a true centrist as opposed to a 'triangulator'. I think Sen. Obama can bring the best thinking from both sides of the aisle (with a commitment to liberal principals) to bear on finding workable solutions to this nation's many challenges.

Go Barry!

Posted by: Mr. S | February 13, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Tim, Frank and Mr. P. I too am registered as a Republican, but I plan to vote for Obama in November. (On the Republican ticket, I would have voted for Ron Paul, but that's another story.) Obama really is the best candidate in my opinion and I will be happy to vote for him without giving a second thought to my party affliation, my race (I'm a white male), my political beliefs, or anything else except the good of my country.

I too am a regular voter, but not much of a financial contributor -- until now and until Obama.

Posted by: Dave | February 13, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Thank you all for your support!

Posted by: B Oboma | February 13, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

I must say I really appreciate your writers' analyses, and also your readers' comments.

About the next American President... he's there in the Primaries for Everyone to See.

Posted by: Craig | February 13, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

Welcome on board, my Republican fellows! After being fooled by Dubya not once, but twice, you guys decide to be fooled again by another cheap talking candidate by make decisions based on guts rather than brain
as if he didn't have an almost identical voting records as Hillary in senate.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... you can't get fooled again." It looks like you can get fooled every 4 years by these "charming/straight/fresh" candidates. You get what you deserve.
by the way: welcome back 8 years from now to say "have violated our trust and sold off and out the middle-class for money and favors."

Posted by: Carl | February 13, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse


Hey, did you hear that Obama also won the latino vote in Maryland? I guess they didn't get the letter that said cos they were latino they had to vote for Hillary.

You know the great thing about having someone like Obama in the White House is that it is a great chance for both parties to do some house cleaning and get things back on track.

Posted by: Jay | February 13, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

I really wanted the Republicans to just please give me some candidate to get excited about, but they haven't delivered. Even though I hate abortion I'm going to have to go with Obama. I just don't think McCain is that serious about ending abortion, and Obama is just more of a uniter who would do a better job for the environment and help us get out of Iraq.

Posted by: Janie | February 13, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Guys we have to be realistic,use our mental capacity to decide and not just be emmotionaly taken.
May be the problem is that we see things from different perspectives.
But as for me,Obama is the the right person......!!!

Posted by: Emmans | February 13, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

It is heartening to see the most centrist candidates from both parties lining up for a November showdown. It would be such a breath of fresh air to actually have a candidate try to unite this country. I believe Obama and McCain can both do that.

Ironically, if you are a racist you should vote Obama. There will be no more excuses in America for anyone to claim that they don't have an opportunity because of their skin color. Maybe then we'll be able to focus on the real problem in have less opportunity if you aren't rich!

Give me a uniter that will breath life back into the American dream! Give me Barack Obama!

Posted by: Tsongas Democrat | February 13, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

I've enjoyed the consternation of talking heads and journalists trying to "explain" voting results that favor the "black" candidate or the "female" candidate. Imagining who would fair better against McCain takes this sport to a higher level of inanity.

For we the voters, the paeans, the non-super delegates its becoming about finding our best leader. The one who inspires, who has a vision that unites and moves us forward. The one who can lead with brilliance and confidence and promises to make the US a beacon to the world. That candidate is Obama, without a close second.

We don't need a micro-manager, a policy-monger, a technocrat-that's what congress is for. Leadership, judgment, symbolic/soft power- that's Obama.

As for who is better against McCain.
Like someone else said, I vote Obama over McCain and McCain over Hillary.

For those calculating demographics: I'm a white Southerner, 35 yrs old, independent.

Posted by: Brian | February 13, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the most inspiring and likeable Democratic candidate in many years. Maybe even in my entire life. I've never voted for a Democratic nominee, but I considered it with him.

That said in my case I am a conservative in almost all the areas where McCain is conservative. (I'm not so fond of the Iraq war, but I think it might be one of those things where none of the options are all that good and a case can be made that staying is less bad) If I were a moderate or worried about the economy I think Obama would plausibly be a better choice. Although I think he does need to have a bit more substance even if it alienates a percentage of voters.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand... I just don't know why she was ever a front-runner. She has difficulties reaching out to independents, she's almost running on the Clinton Presidency, and I just don't see what would be inspiring or likeable there. Her ideology is not that much different on Obama's except her foreign policy votes are more in-line with the Bush Administration and she's been tough on smut in video-games. As a conservative I can see the appeal to those positions, but I don't see why they would appeal to Democrats or independents.

Posted by: Thomas R | February 13, 2008 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama may be a pop star, but he lacks vital experience and wisdom needed to perform as America's highest level statesman. As he promised, he will pass the controversial Armenian Genocide bill, turn our only reliable ally in the Middle East against us (Turkey) and America's foreign policy will go downhill from there. With thoughtless acts like that, Obama could be the tipping point that pushes the US into a full collapse on the world stage. He's fit to run a high school debate club, not the US presidency.

Posted by: ozzy | February 13, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm a recent convert to the Obama camp. I'm not able to vote the the U.S. because I'm teaching in China. My first thought was that Obama has not been tried by fire at the national level. Upon reflection, he has also not been tainted by the hypocracy and greed of the corporate/lobbyist kingmakers of the same district.

One of the above comments struck me to the core. Why shouldn't we give our children an apportunity to hope to believe that change can come in their lifetimes. In order to become this nations next generation of leaders they should be able to reflect back on the hope or if you will, the "we can" mantra of the Obama campaign.
Finally, Bush had never had any foreign travel or policy experience. You Republicans trusted him. He did everything he said he would do and proved the prognosticators right on at least 8 our of 10 of their worst fears.
Finally, as they say across this world: "Anybody but Bush". I'm adding AbB...and his ilk.

Posted by: cdcrooms | February 13, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is the only one among publicly fighting politicians who is willing to learn,
while Barb Bush can easily bit up H. Clinton in terms of her "experience" matter: The former First Lady, Barbara Bush, is hanging inside and around White House for a much longer period of time than H. Clinton. Well, B. Bush is also A WOMAN, and for a very long time.

One more comment. Americans SUFFER A "BIG DADDY" dependency syndrome. We shall ask ourselves what KIND of education we do need, or what KIND of health care is good for us. Do we have any choice? Are we all so helpless that we need a big Daddy or Mama to think for us and tell us what to do with our own house, children, business? We desperately need to learn about ourselves, our great problems and needs, and most importantly look for wonderful possibilities. We shall become more innovative, active and learn how to be responsible for ourselves, our families and our communities.

Politicians SHALL LEARN how to be really useful by supporting great new entrepreneurs,inventors,researchers, small independent business owners, and intelligent educators. These people are actual builders of the very healthy body of our new economy and culture.

Thank you.

Posted by: me Henry | February 13, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is finished she must just do the honorable thing.Obama your voice is almost like MLK just add a bit of "i have dream"in your daily campaining speeches i estimate you will sweep her out of the race .Goodluck

Posted by: edson mudzingwa | February 13, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is finished she must do the honorable thing.Hey Obama a bit of "i have a dream"in your daily campain speech will sweep your rival out of the race.Goodluck

Posted by: edson mudzingwa | February 13, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

Please have respect for Barack Obama for his unique greatness and sound intelligence.

The racism would not be possible if every person decided to be recognized as A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL.

Posted by: Me Henry | February 13, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

I´m a German citizen following closely the US election process. Don´t believe anyone who tells you Barack Obama would be bad for US foreign politics. Accually, he is the ONLY candidate who could possibly restore the credibility of the US. What many Americans I meet and talk to don´t realize is to what extend Bush jr. has hurt the image of your country. Any candidate who even remotely reminds people of Bush, and even if its only the colour of his skin, would be considered a bad joke.

Posted by: Sasha | February 13, 2008 4:50 AM | Report abuse

The power and the money are terrified of Obama. The folks who brought us the Iraq war want Clinton v McCain because they win either way. Republican leaning independents, like me, and some Republicans will vote Obama but never for Clinton. If you like the war and politics as usual vote for Clinton. Clinton=Bush in my view. The Post is already predicting the Democratic Convention to be ugly, like Chicago '68. The push will be on to destroy Obama and deny him the nomination. I am a mostly conservative middle-aged white guy. I hope the other oldsters (particularly women) of Texas and Ohio get on board. As a Maryland independent, I was not allowed to vote yesterday. I want my chance next fall. It's time to send him a check.

Posted by: Chris | February 13, 2008 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary couldn't win even the beltway states. She has 8 straight loses. That makes her a really weak candidate. All the talk about being ready for day 1 has not paid off. Hillary' main problem is that she has not been straight with the american people. Her tax returns, her white house papers that are hidden in the Clinton library and her refusal to say she made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war as well as the Iran terrorism bill has really sunk into the minds of the voters. More than that she has not been able to differentiate herself from Obama in any one issue at least to the point where the difference is noticable.

As for McCain, he is a fluke in the republican party right now. Only reason he is in the picture is becuase of the split between Huckabee and Romney. McCain can not expect a cakewalk in the general election as his policies are often controversial.

Posted by: Mel Duncan | February 13, 2008 5:38 AM | Report abuse

So, if so many Republicans DISLIKE McCain, how did he get so far???? Who voted for McCain?

Posted by: CR | February 13, 2008 5:40 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons are probably spending their time wining and dining the superdelegates every opportunity they get. Other than that they need a miracle to pull this off now. Not only has Hillary lost the momentum, she has also lost the continuity of a campaigning team. The replacement of Patti Doyle will affect her when it comes to latino votes in Texas. Already the latinos are lining up behind Obama.

The only reason Clinton won California is because a large population of that state had voted as absentees a few weeks before the Iowa caucus. Without those votes Hillary would have lost California.

Posted by: Tom Wickers | February 13, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

Voting for Obama is a complete over-reaction to the stupidity of the Bush years. I hate Bush, but I remember how awful it was to have committed liberals in power as well. Carter was exactly like Obama- charismatic at first, bright, hey, "Why Not The Best?"- and in retrospect he's considered one of the worst presidents we've ever had. I almost broke down in agony the night Bush was wrongly declared the winner in 2000, and now you idiots are going to over-react by putting in another guy who can't possibly handle the job. Amazing. (Meanwhile, since Obama has no possible way or the inclination to manage our defense or homeland security properly, I won't be letting my kids settle in New York).

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 13, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

my name is jack. i am an international observer (australia). i lived in virginia for a while. i have followed all american elections since the days of bill c. i guess you could say i am a democrat.

i was a vocal supporter of hilary until i saw B. Obama's iowa speech. i then did more research. it is my belief that B. Obama is the best political candidate i have seen in my 32 years.

B. Obama has been compared to JFK. I take it one step further and compare him to the great Abraham Lincoln. It's a big call i know. But both where young, both passionate speakers, both great idealists.

When you look at great american presidents in history what do you see? and which candidate in your lifetime reflects those traits the most?

If I was american i would vote for B. Obama without hesitation. But all i can do is urge you americans to give Obama all the support you can.


Posted by: jackw | February 13, 2008 7:45 AM | Report abuse


That´s exactly what I´m talking about. Security. The US can go ahead and spend any insane amount of money and willpower on weapons and warfare and waterboarding, but without credibility, without capturing the hearts and minds of people around the globe, the war on terror cannot be won. Only Obama seems to be able to create such an attractive frame of thinking. He can make your children safe in away no torture-loving republican possibly could.

Posted by: Sasha | February 13, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

For once in a lifetime (I'm 60) we have a chance to have government by the people, for the people and of the people.

Barak Obama is an American. Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. Barak Obama was not a child of privilege. Barak Obama loves the United States Constitution. Barak Obama understands the struggles of working people. Barak Obama can identify with immigrants. Barak Obama respects women.
Barak Obama worked tirelessly in Illinois for Latinos (and defeated a Latino opponent - winning the Latino vote). He is the only candidate who has actually lived and worked in grass roots communities.

If you read the news from around the world - Barak Obama is the only candidate that will put a gleam back onto the tarnished image of America. Barak Obama os the only candidate who has never voted for this war that is killing our young people.

I am sick and tired of reading what pundits and pollsters have to say about Hispanics and Latinos in the US. It is perfectly clear that Barak Obama has more in common with Latinos - than HC or JM.

Looking towards Texas - I hope that young and older Tejanos will ignore the hype of a slick HC smoke screen and make a thoughtful descsion to vote for the candidate who can see them as Americans- just as he is an American.

We are all in this together.

El pueblo unido jamás será vencido / The people united will never be defeated.

Posted by: Denise Oliver-Velez | February 13, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

I am South African and I am motivated by Obama. For the last few years, America has been dominated by politics of doom and gloom, hatred, fear and retaliation. When I think about America, I thought about war, death, selfishnessa and neo-dictatorship. I see a great nation in the vice grip of fear.

Oh Yes, Obama is a breath of fresh air, not only to the US, but to everyone in this planet. But I am afraid that America has history of murdering its revolutionaries (AL,JFK, MLK, etc.). Obama, is a symbol of paece and intelligence.

Posted by: Mavuta | February 13, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

To those of you who are voting for the chanting we can do it and falling for it, Obama will become human again if he stumbles into the White House. When all the empty words campaign speeches are done; and Obama has to make policy and pass legislation his popularity will go lower then George Bush's popularity is now. Then American will be left with an in experienced preacher in the White House. I am a life long Demcrat and I will not vote for him. I am only happy that Mc Cain, a so called moderate is bieng nominated by the Republicans. I beleve that HRC can still pull off the nomination by winning big in the remaining Sates and winning the Super Delegates. The same foolish voters who elected George Bush and Ronald Reagan the largest empty head to ever occupy the White House are out in mass. If you made a statistical representaion of the voters in America, they would be on the left side of an IQ Chart ie less than 100. Maybe it is time to move to Bermuda.

Posted by: anonymous | February 13, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

What´s the fuzz all about? Hillary won´t just disappear if she doesn´t win the nomination. Her experience will still be around, she can give Barack a hint or two if he makes it.

Posted by: Sasha | February 13, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Think of Abrham Lincoln,think of Martin L. King, think of Kenny and think of Barak Obama.That's the time atleast America WAS America.This new lad stands among the names we foreigners outside America accept its greatness. Bring back the the image we once had about USA.

Posted by: Dan | February 13, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Think of Abrham Lincoln,think of Martin L. King, think of Kenny and think of Barak Obama.That's the time atleast America WAS America.This new lad stands among the names we foreigners outside America accept its greatness. Bring back the the image we once had about USA.

Posted by: Dan | February 13, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Thhe people in this country are so fed up with past eight years of Bush and the former eight years of Clinton that THEY WANT CHANGE. We are sick of being lied to for sixteen years, we are sick of politics as usual for sixteen years, and we want change. Guess who will bring that?

Posted by: Bob | February 13, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

It is nice to hear a view from South Africa, the land of baby-rapers.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I want change, especially my neighbor's change.

Posted by: democrat voter | February 13, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama is more like Bush in experience. I do not understand why we continue to elect people to high office that do not have experience and when things go wrong, we wonder why. Obama has good stump speeches; he's funny, charismatic, but there's no there there. People are painting him like Kennedy - please. Kennedy command a PT boat during WWII; was a U.S. Rep and U.S. Senator - but because he stumps well, people are voting for him. Clinton is by far more experience and knowledgeable - the glass ceiling is pretty thick. The Clinton's are the favorite whipping boys for everyone. Obama may very well go on to win, but like Bush he will have to pick older experienced people in his cabinet and we'll be on the same ride only this time it'll be someone without a speech impediment.

Posted by: mj | February 13, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

I like Obama alot. I hope to see him make a great contribution to our country and possibly the world. BUT, I've long agreed with others who have noted...his resume is simply too thin. It is especially too thin for a time when our country faces too many deep systemic problems. The damage W has done to our economy will take a very signifcant amount of time and effort to restore...along with experience.

This is not the time to elect a novice based on his wonderful speaking abilities. I too yearn for the hope-filled days of JFK, but our country was on a more even keel when he was elected, and our economy was flying high. JFK had a much more substantial resume when he was elected.

As someone noted earlier, we are over-reacting to the damage of the last 7 years. If your house was suddenly flooding from burst pipes and you made an emergency call to a plumber, would you want a junior trainee with a few months experience to show up...or someone who's been involved with this kind of work for several years?

My support is for Hilary, warts and all. And yes, I do believe she will govern much like her husband did...with progressive taxation, and an inquisitive mind to solving complex problems. While I believe Obama would make a very good VP choice, if he is the nominee I will likely vote for McCain, and for the reasons above. My guess is that he is pandering to the far right (it's how the game is often played folks), and will tell them to go to HECK and pursue a moderate course once in office.

Posted by: ChrisH | February 13, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I agree with you Chris. The ecomony is in a terrible situation and the health insurance is even worst - electing Obama would only result in continued problems because of his inexperience. This is remenisent of working in an office and having a new young man come in and doing a under-whelming job and for his reward, he is promoted. I have worked for many a young person without experience and it shows. At this point in economic and world wide situation, we need experience not feel goodspeeches about hope - hope without action and the experience and knowledge to make change, is just a word.

Posted by: mj | February 13, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Why do people keep stating that Barack Obama doesn't have any experience?!?!? He has been an elected official longer than Hillary! Before that he was a community organizer; and before that headed the Harvard Law Review.

Hello people! Can we say QUALIFIED

Posted by: mike | February 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Akers what in the world are you talking about? "It's no secret Republicans think it would be easier to take out Clinton?!?!?!" Where is your support for this conclusory assertion? Are you relying on a poll between McCain v. Obama BEFORE the Republican slime machine has turned on him in comparison to McCain v. Clinton after 20 years of slime machine attacks? This is blatant blatant bias, what a shame WaPo, what a shame.

Posted by: NotAfraidOfRobots | February 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

It is great that we have another 'uniter' on the way to the white house. Who was campaigning as a a great "uniter bringing R's and D's together'? I forget NOT! Of Course, it was George W. At least he cut my taxes-- this guy (OBAMA) is sure going to raise my taxes (No I am not rich or Republican). So, thanks for nothing--- may be McCain will rescue me.

Posted by: james | February 13, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not Qualified. How does being a community organizer give one the experience to be president of the U.S? He was a state Senator and was a U.S. Senator only 2 years before he decide to run for president. He does not have the experience to be president - it will be major on-the-job training for him. I see younger votes going for Obama but with age comes experience and wisdom. The wisdom of this voter says he doesn't have the experience right now. I am a Democrat and always have been, but should Obama win the nomination - I will be a totally undecided voter. This nation needs experience and needs it now.

Posted by: mj | February 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama's goose is cooked. They may have been able to successfully deflect the allegation that he's a Muslim, but they'll never be able to deny that he has fathered TWO BLACK CHILDREN!

Posted by: smarterthanU | February 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

As regards the width of Mr. Obama's resume, first compare it to Mr. Lincoln's. Then consider the substance of his experiences--do you think Ms. Clinton has any real idea about what the working poor--who make up a much larger portion of the population than big campaign donors--actually go through? That's the kind of "real world" experience one simply cannot get by sharing the key to executive mansions, whether in Arkansas or D.C.

Yes, i do find Mr. Obama to be, in all, the better candidate. No, i don't think Ms. Clinton would be horrible (flag-burning amendments and Iraq-war votes aside) either. But i'd like to hear Mr. Obama drop some policy now, and not just messages of hope (though that approach did wonders to get FDR elected).

[i'm a 30-year-old leftist law-student; there has been a Bush or Clinton on every presidential ballot since my birth. So far.]

Posted by: ape dersen | February 13, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Hi.I am a Peruvian/Italian who lived in the USA while at High School. I have followed closely the race and can tell you something about the image of America abroad.Bush is not liked, but that has not changed the usually good attitude towards American people. Regarding the Clintons, many see them as a dinasty that would say anything to please the voters; we were shocked when the former President almost insulted blacks a few weeks ago. Maccain is totally unknown. Obama is seen as a honest guy and a wonderful speaker.

American people will choose its destiny. But as foreign image is concerned, Obama would be welcomed abroad; a President that we could relate to and talk without the arrogance of the current one.

I hope these comments influence at least just one of you. My time writing this letter would have been well spent.

Good luck.

Posted by: Guillermo | February 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

So, Obama is 6'2" How tall is Grumpa Warfortherestofourlives McCain? Our country loves to vote for the taller person, so it is a good thing to know.

Posted by: bearmom | February 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama is not Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Obama is not Kennedy and he is not FDR. Mr. Obama should be running on his own merits not in comparison to others. I find him pleasing, and his speeches are really good, but not qualified or experienced enough to be president. Experience should be the key to this election, but we are throwing experience overboard.

Posted by: mj | February 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama is another Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: EH | February 13, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I beleive Senator Obama can bring a fresh perspective to the country and Presidency. Experience - I don't believe he lacks it. If the two candidates "experience" in public office is compared, I think the concensus would be they possess equal experience. Be clear, Hillary Clinton can not and should not claim Bill Clinton's "experience" as President her own. I would rather have the person who has experienced the "american dream" from the bottom up. Someone who came from humble beginnings and strived to be the best that they could become while helping others along the way. I am mistrusting of a person who believes they are entitled to a thing because of their social status, economic status or the family name.

Posted by: American | February 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

It's interesting that discussions continue to circle around Obama's "thin" resume. I'm a native of Illinois currently living in Texas. Yes he did the things in Illinois that he says he did. And since so many seem to think that his community activities aren't relevant than you should be hearing Hillary's new ads here in Texas where she is touting her "activist" experience. We keep hearing about her 35 years of experience. Well, I am a 75 year old woman who lived / worked in Washington, DC and was a registered and voting Republican. Not anymore, my friends, I'm seen upclose and personal what the Clinton's did / didn't do. I don't count them out because the Clinton's don't lose well and right now their backs are up against the wall and if you know anything about dogs you know they don't do well when they are cornered. I'm voting for Obama, I have been supporting his candidacy from the beginning. Washington DC has become a cesspot and someone has to believe they can clean some part of it up - I'm glad to hear Obama is willing to try. He knows what he can do and what he can't and he's honest about it. It's time to relinquish the memories of a past that isn't as bright as some of our dimming memories. It's just time to take a chance on a fresh young vibrant voice with more experience than many who have entered office in Washington DC in the past.

Posted by: charlotte | February 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

mj: "but with age comes experience and wisdom." NOT ALWAYS. Look at the state of the country today.

Posted by: American | February 13, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I think Tom Cole's displeasure with that "thinnest of resumes" results from the Republican translation: "Thinnest of scandal."

Cole has to have the most uninspiring job in America: Sell the forked-tongue express to enough of us to make the loss appear less than catastrophic in a desperate attempt to prevent a veto-proof Democratic landslide.

Posted by: Steve B | February 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

There is a difference between living a long time and having experience. I've worked with plenty of people that have been working a job for 25 years and couldn't run a lemonade stand. And I've seen young people come in and work like you wouldn't believe. They bring in new ideas and a fresh perspective. Please stop confusing age with experience.

This country needs someone willing to compromise and make the right decisions. Not someone that will rule with an iron fist and demand everyone else follow along like little ducks. People like to say Hillary and McCain are more experienced but haven't they both had to change campaign teams and strategies? Their campaign's remind me of the Bush Administration, constant turnover. Now if you worked for a company with a high turnover rate, what would you think of the leader?

Posted by: PleaseUnderstand | February 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Like some other commentators, I'm a registered Republican and yes I'll vote for Obama.
I am amused over the 'qualification' and 'thin resume' talk. If you want resume, go back and resurrect Dodd, Biden or Richardson. The Presidency really is a leadership position not a managerial position. Our institutions are pretty much run themselves. What I want is a leader with judgment and wisdom. Do I absolutely know that Obama has that? No. But I'll trust my instincts on this issue.

Posted by: xanpar | February 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse


McCain is ahead because a) the Republican field was weak this year, b) the conservatives divided their votes among a bunch of imperfect candidates, and c) because the Republican party and what it means to be "conservative" is in disarray.

Conservatives felt they had little choice throughout most of the summer, thus the calls for Fred Thompson to join the race. Romney was a recently converted liberal, northeastern governor; Huckabee was a no-name who impressed people as likable and socially conservative, but fairly progressive and big-government otherwise; Giuliani was a New York liberal; Paul was a fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings, but weak on defense; Thompson seemed to have all the right qualifications, but ran his campaign with about as much energy as chewed gum stuck on the floor, etc., etc.

McCain slumped badly through much of the race because he had no support from conservatives, and he still doesn't, while many of the moderates drifted toward Giuliani. When Giuliani's strategy started to look worse and worse, McCain began to rebound. Romney couldn't rally conservatives, nor could Huckabee fully, and so everyone kind of sat back until McCain slipped into the nomination. All of the Super Tuesday posturing against McCain is what should have been happening a month earlier, but without a consensus candidate behind whom to rally, conservatives didn't really have anything with which to fight.

As a result, here is McCain, the nominee by default. He will make strong arguments from the position of national security, but I suspect that he will go down worse than Bob Dole did because he excites conservatives just about as much as Bob Dole excited independents.

Especially with Obama making a strong play for independents, who are largely responsible for giving us McCain, how McCain can hope for a shot at victory in November is unclear...unless Clinton becomes the nominee, and then we're back to it being anybody's game.

McCain's only real alternative in the general election, especially against Obama, is to scare people and then scare them again with national security, and to dig down deep into the mud and start hurling it with all of his old-man spite and energy. If he makes "Commander in Chief" the most important image of the president in people's minds, he can win. Otherwise, he becomes a historical footnote.

Posted by: blert | February 13, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing to me that people are quick to say that Obama's not ready to be President. How do we know any of them are ready. None of them have ever been the President of the United States. You are "HOPING" that the candidate you choose will be the right one but you really have no idea. Sure you can look at their record and gauge what might happen but it all depends on the staff around them. Now if you think a candidate that has lived in DC for 20 - 40 years is the best candidate, then by all means, vote that way. But understand that we won't all feel that way.

Posted by: Amazing | February 13, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Obama may be a pop star, but he lacks vital experience and wisdom needed to perform as America's highest level statesman. As he promised, he will pass the controversial Armenian Genocide bill, turn our only reliable ally in the Middle East against us (Turkey) and America's foreign policy will go downhill from there."

Ozzy are you serious? Are you stating that the Genocide of Armenians never took place? I say good for Obama for not giving in to revisionist history. Of course the Turks don't like this, but it did happen.

Posted by: SINYC | February 13, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

It is a poor comparison to say that Hillary's experience in government is about as much as Obama's. As far back as 1974 she was a member of the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff. While not officially documented, it is well known that she was often a sounding board with valued opinion in Bill's efforts to address legistlative issues as Governor and President. Many have recounted times when people would present Bill with one or more potential solutions to an issue and he would say something like, "Run it by Hillary and let me know what she says".

OK, not something she'd actually have on a resume, but she's had her ear to the ground on how the government works and how to get things done (and, how NOT to), for quite some time. This experience obviously has helped her become a very effective and appreciated Senator.

Further, her experience has also prepared her for dealing with the right-wing slime machine. Unless he's really lucky, or for some unlikely reason they don't turn it on, he'll get his head handed to him. That's what they tried to do with Bill from DAY 1 onward! I believe she'll be much more deft with their BS than Obama who hasn't even been touched by it yet (can you say, "Deer in the headlights"?)

And yes, he'll likely be as ineffective as Jimmy Carter...the first President I voted for. Carter's problems weren't so much the right wing, but a generally poor understanding of how things actually get done it DC (where I live and work BTW). He tried micro-managing in a job that requires broader strokes. He also failed to understand the importance of wooing the right people on the Hill to get legistlation passed. Hillary knows that game.

Not saying that Obama will make the same mistakes as Carter, but he is riding a wave similar to Carter's...and it is all too possible that he may find himself in WAY OVER his head PDQ!

Speechifying ain't gonna help much!

Posted by: ChrisH | February 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I truely like everyone talking about experience. Mrs. Clinton got hers by standing behind her husband William.And some in the senate where she and Barak are both at right now for her and his trianing. (Not getting much done though, due to being on the road and missing votes.) She has not done anything outstanding in her life but be a mother and wife who danced to William's music while he was in power at tstate and federal level.(At least Barak has state experience and a little federeal) Know she has power though, because she (her campaign organization)(same thing because they dance to her music) got that TV commentator suspended after two on air apologies for saying she was pipmping her daughter for super delegates. So everyone here, who crosses the HC campaign,watch your backs.

Posted by: bb | February 13, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I've always thought that McCain and Clinton were the two best nominees. I won't bother with Obama. If he fails to defeat her in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania then he won't win in November and is nothing more than a tool to keep the party from the Clintons. Once he accomplishes his mission his candidacy will collapse. People will make the safe choice.

Posted by: Daedalus | February 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not another Jimmy Carter. But even if he is, anybody's better than Clinton.

Posted by: jsb | February 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I realize the comment about Obama father two black children was satire, but they are only mostly black: Obama is biracial, with one white and one black parent (spent more time with the white parent so he´s more white, even though people can call him black/African-American but no one, I mean no one, calls him white). His wife is African-American. Therefore, his kids are . . . Oh, who cares. McCain would seek to portray Obama as inexperienced and soft against terrorism, though interest groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004 will come up with the real dirty stuff. Hopefully Obama would be better prepared than was Kerry. I think Clinton could withstand such attacks better (thicker skin) but she would also motivate fewer independents and more Republicans (the Republicans to vote for McCain).

Posted by: Tony | February 13, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the Dem nominee I will be voting for McCain. For the record I'm a 35 year old gay white male and I voted for Clinton on Super Tuesday, but I'll be for McCain in the General. Obama was a PART-TIME STATE SENATOR for seven years before getting an easy pass to the U.S. Senate. John McCain is a war hero with an outstanding resume. On some issues he is too conservative but I'd rather go with someone with a proven record of leadership than some lightweight who gives a good speech. McCain has stood up time and time again for his beleiefs, even if it meant bucking his own party. We've had 8 years of disaster because of another dilletante, and there's no way in hell I'll pull the lever for another.

Posted by: DemforMcCain | February 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I would like to note, since HC is counting her White House experience, that THAT White House gave us NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, the beginnings of the current mortgage crisis, the beginnings of the domestic spying /immunity bill, the privatization of the student loan 'market', ad nauseum....

If she wants to run on that 'experience', I say go for it...

Posted by: Dorothy | February 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I feel like I'm at an AA meeting: I am a registered Republican (female, 27) and I will vote for Barak Obama.

I happened to have voted for McCain in both the 2000 & 2008 primaries but I am dissatisfied with the old Republican structure. That said, however, if Obama loses this primary there is no way on God's green earth I will EVER vote for Hillary.

I'm inclined to agree with Mavuta's assertion that, "Obama is a breath of fresh air, not only to the US, but to everyone in this planet." Similarly, I remember being in Italy right before the 2004 elections being asked to "Vote Kerry" by perceptive Milanese. The world is watching and I don't want more of the same. There's been a Clinton or a Bush on the ticket since the day I was born. Impeachment, scandal, having my friends at war in Iraq - I'm over all of it.

Posted by: Over It | February 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

During real election process race will play a greater roll than primaries,where voters are more progressive.And obviuosly with bulk of negative adds and attacks the rock star image will fade.And momentaum doesnt' exist for long time for a person without a real policy experience.Obamas' apparent advantages over Hillary are due to the fact that she has been attacked by both right and left leaning media.On the contrary, Obama has gotten a free pass. But in national election,all attacks from right will be channelled to his direction.
Democrats are again going to miss the chance to win the white house.

Posted by: Thinker | February 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The nimrods that keep comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter need to put down the bong.

Carter won by appealing to moderate Southerners.

Obama is winning by expanding the Party. In almost every primary, 10% more voters under 25 are voting than voted in 2004.

There's a reason almost ten million more Democrats have voted in the primaries than Republicans, even though the states have included Red States. Obama is inspiring people to register and vote. Carter never did anything of the kind.

Obama is expanding the Party in every Demographic. Carter never inspired, Carter never offered visions of a New America.

He simply wasn't Nixon or the man who pardoned him, Jerry Ford. That's all it took to elect Jimmy Carter.

Anyone who compares Obama to Carter is so historically illiterate they really should be more sensitive to the ignorance they are displaying. They obviously weren't around then or they wouldn't be offering up such nonsense.

Posted by: Reality Check | February 13, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP hadn't been destroyed by Bush they'd have viable candidates to support. Right now they're running against their own record and trying to revive, reframe and redefine "conservative" to mean whatever will buy them eight more years of fleecing their own flock. I'm voting for McCain mostly because I want to be completely sure the mistakes of the GOP land on them.

Posted by: DFC | February 13, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand all the hoopla about Obama. He never actually says anything. If you look at his actual positions, he is extremely liberal so I doubt that Republicans will actually vote for him. Also, Obama is not independent of the liberal wing of the party, McCain is much more of an independent. I think a lot of this hoopla is because the media has not done anything to scrutinize him. They just all drink the kool-aid.

Posted by: George | February 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a media creation that is going to be elected on his ability to give a good speech. 1st he was Lincoln, then MLK, and then JFK. Maybe if he had some of his own accomplishments he would not have to run on the accomplishments of others. The GOP attack machine will run this guy into the ground. Everyone knows that Cook County Pols are the most corrupt gov officials in the world. Obama's alliance with those hacks will make him easy pickings for the GOP. Add in Rezko, doing drugs, and buying support with his PAC Hopefund and the dems will once again lose the whitehouse. If the GOP could make Kerry look like a coward imagine what they will do to someone who has no achievments to speak of. I am a lifelong Dem and I will be voting for McCain.

Posted by: Phil | February 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama is another iPhone.

I waited in line get this phone. I paid hefty early termination fee to get this one. Now, I hate this phone but I signed a contract. Now what?

>> Cole also said Obama has the "thinnest public resume of any presidential candidate since Wendell Willkie."

We will wait till November (6000 hours) to find this answer.

Cole is probably right!

Posted by: Benson | February 13, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

We all must be able to solve these problems together. Mr. or Mrs. President Congress, Supreme Court get OFF your duffs. Roll up your sleeves do some OVERTIME if needed (most Americans know about that). But STOP this campaign of stupidity and let's get to work. There is NOT one American out there who wakes up in the a.m. and says to themselves we are going to fail today. So do NOT brow beat anyone who has a different idea of how to get things done, because it's simple. TOGETHER.

Posted by: Michael A. Omaha, NE | February 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Being a person that has the mis-fortune of living in Tom Cole's district, it would be nice to see him actually DO something for the people of the 4th district of Oklahoma instead of making a fool of himself spouting the GOP line on EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth. This is a fairly poor district and it amazes me that the people keep electing Tom Cole's that vote against the people's interest on everything.

Tom, get out now while the "gettin'" good.

Posted by: twoidhd | February 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Can't wait to kick Repukelican a** come November

Posted by: Johnny B Good | February 13, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm from Chicago and believe me, Obama's "bringing together Republicans" in the Illinois General Assembly is hardly much to brag about. It's amazing that some of those politicians can find the state capitol building, much less legislate. For US Senate, Obama ran against Alan Keyes, who didn't even live in Illinois prior to 2004 b/c Keyes was the best the Illinois Republican Party could muster. That was hardly a campaign -- anyone not in a coma could have won that race and become the Illinois Senator.

Obama is fresh b/c he hasn't done anything, except align himself with Cook County and Daley Machine party hacks. He could have endorsed a white reform candidate for Cook County Board President but instead chose the son of a black machine boss who held the president position until he had a stroke. Cook County is facing a $232 million budget deficit. Good choice, Barack! Obama stands for change? Not in 2006. He could have gone against the status quo and transcended race but he didn't. It shocks me how guillible my fellow Americans are --all of you people outside of Illinois go gaa-gaa over a man you don't even know. I'm angry and feel betrayed by Obama. I didn't vote for him to be Senator only to launch a presidential campaign two years later, when he did NOTHING to imrprove the lives of Illinoians. He'll be a change if he gets into the White House, all right. But don't expect your lives to improve. You'll reap what you sow. Well, not always. I had great hopes for him as my Senator to bring change to Illinois b/c he was a "fresh face". This fresh face turned out to be an egotistical opportunist.

Posted by: Sonora | February 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: anonymous
"Maybe it is time to move to Bermuda."

Bon voyage. Hurry, please.

Posted by: ed | February 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

There seems no point in defending Clinton, even though she is the victim of an unending barrage of personal attacks which seldom touch on issues or her qualifications for leadership. I recently had a conversation with an Obama supporter who attacked Hillary's health care plan only to discover that the Obama supporter was dredging up the plan she proposed during her husband's term and not the plan she introduced in 2007. Turns out he knew nothing about Hillary's proposals. This does not surprise me since Obama supporters have already beatified their candidate. Voting for Clinton is tantamount to voting for Satan. Unfortunately, the press is giving Obama the same free ride that George Bush got. Why is that?

Posted by: Zeon | February 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

AS for experience, how about the donkey that made three trips around the world and was still a jackass?

Posted by: John Wester, Mexico | February 13, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

This thin resume thing is getting kind of old. I mean, you're right, he hasn't been in Congress long enough to have voted on both sides of every issue like the rest of the them. Senator Obama has had 20 years of experience in and out of government and has had to make his own way in the world, rather than the typical child of the wealthy that we've been seeing out of the Republicans the last 20 years (and that includes McCain).
The experience that Obama has is that he grew up as a member of the American middle class. Not only is he one of us but he has excelled beyond what the rest of us could hope to achieve and he has done it without the usual chip on his shoulder that the hyper successful seem to have.
I don't know how you can tell who will be successful leading our country. So many people with fabulous resumes have somehow fallen short of greatness--the current guy seems to have fallen short of competence. The only thing we have to go on really is the character of the individual and this one is of the best character that America is able to produce.

Posted by: Tom Fiore | February 13, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

........Comments so many Negative/lies about Hillary why, she's done nothing but give 35 years of her life to government service, and has been a good United States Senator for New York.

Yet I read alot of folks lying about her character, lying/arguing she needs to lose why whats she done to lose???

I believe republicans will do anything and we've seen it, "LYING about her, repulbicans who will stop at nothing to undermine Hillary including "LYING" about her character!

She's a sharp lawyer who's experienced and she'd be a great help for America and restore to America what the republicans have "WRECKED its Image and economy with the Largest Deficit/Debt in all U.S. Presidencies combined $10 TRILLION AND COUNTING" and America thanks to the "DISASTEROUS REPUBLICANS GET THE BILL!

In conclusion folks, "Hillary would be a "GREAT PRESIDENT and America can achieve a better America if they give her a chance to this registered voter she'd earned it!

Posted by: Thomas Birchfield | February 13, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

The only thing that matches the cynicism and Machiavellian nature of the plan to put team Billary back in the white house (or is it HillBilly now?) was Karl Rove's plan to install Dubya. However, standing near a the leader doesn't prove you can lead. And, unfortunately if you inherit the infrastructure of the dear leader, it's hard for the people to evaluate what's you and what's the machine. Hillary could easily be as big a failure as Dubya who's path to the presidency she would have more in common with than Bill's. She might have the judgment necessary to be in command hidden in there but it's impossible to measure -- she hasn't stood on her own for many decades. Thinking the machine can be president is the same flawed view that allowed Dubya to slip in.

Personal judgment is what counts - you can't ride coattails to command. You either have it in yourself or you don't. Clinton hasn't shown it. Obama has. McCain has.

It's either Obama08 or it's McCain08 then Obama12.

Posted by: Mr Judgment | February 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

........Comments; many Negative/lies about Hillary why?? Republicans that's why??

Folks she's done nothing but give 35 years of her life to government service, and has been a good United States Senator from New York.

Yet I read alot of folks lying about her character, lying/arguing that she needs to lose why whats she done to lose???

........If she loses/America loses

I believe republicans will stop at nothing and will do anything and we've seen that alreay, "LYING about her, to undermine Hillary "LYING" about her and her character!

Fact folks, She's a sharp lawyer who's experienced and she'd be a great President, she'd help America.

She'd restore to America what the republicans have "WRECKED its Image and economy with the Largest Deficit/Debt in all U.S. Presidencies combined $10 TRILLION AND COUNTING" and America thanks to the "DISASTEROUS REPUBLICANS GET THE BILL!

In conclusion folks, "Hillary would be a "GREAT PRESIDENT and America can achieve a better America if they give her a chance to this registered voter she'd earned it!

Posted by: Thomas Birchfield | February 13, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The people who blog about Obama all say the
same things-change,soaring rhetoric,makes
all things possible, blah, blah, blah. I wonder if they received little flyer's in the mail telling them what to say; it certainly seems like a possibility.
I cannot believe the mass hysteria over a
man who cannot and will not speak to the problems we face and what he would like to do about them. What about immigration, what about education and school system failures, about the economy and the thousands of folks losing their homes, what are his goals and solutions for these and so many other things we are facing today that require immediate attention.
Hillary talks about specifics, she talks about what is important to Americans, she talks about solutions and timetables. I am very vexed(thanks Jane Austen)that I as a
citizen have to ask these questions because
the media is too afraid to ask Obama any hard questions(its called doing what they are being paid to do) because they are afraid the black community(some) will label them racist and picket their N.Y. offices.
There are two sets of rules being applied in this Democratic primary-one toward Hillary(no holds barred, half truths, untruths, lets get her) and then the rules for Obama(don't touch him or the blacks will complain and God forbid someone may actually start to ask questions of him and find out there is no there, there.)

Posted by: | February 13, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why I bother to read the comments regarding the presidential canidates. The venom in some of the comments toward Senator Clinton and her husband disgust me. I am a Democrat and have been voting ever since I was old enough which was many years ago. I believe we need a president who knows what is required to serve as President of this great nation. All I have heard from Senator Obama is that he is a "uniter". We heard that same song in 2000 and look where that took us. George W. Bush was not qualified to be president then and I don't believe Senator Obama is qualified now. We have too many problems facing our nation, here and abroad. We need someone who knows the foreign countries and the problems they, too, are facing. That is why I voted for Senator Clinton in my state's primary. I will not vote Republican if she is not the canidate but I hope and pray that people use their head and not their emotions when they consider the challenges facing our nation. We cannot afford another president who does not have any answers - only rhetoric and one that has to learn on the job To you Clinton "haters", I say: "Get over it."

Posted by: Katherine Maupin | February 13, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

........Comments; many Negative/lies about Hillary why?? Republicans that's why??

Folks she's done nothing but give 35 years of her life to government service, and has been a good United States Senator from New York.

Yet I read alot of folks lying about her character, lying/arguing that she needs to lose why whats she done to lose???

........If she loses/America loses."

I believe republicans will stop at nothing and will do anything and we've seen that already, folks just look at what they are doing "LYING about her, to undermine and her record is good,

Fact folks, She's a sharp lawyer who's experienced and she'd be a great President, she'd help America.

She'd restore to America what the republicans have "WRECKED its Image and economy with the Largest Deficit/Debt in all U.S. Presidencies combined $10 TRILLION AND COUNTING'"

"Thanks to the.....

In conclusion folks, "Hillary would be a "GREAT PRESIDENT and America can achieve Universal Health Care if she's elected, I voted for her, and say hey give her a chance she's earned it!

Posted by: Thomas Birchfield | February 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Why Hillary Should Not Be President

The only thing that matches the cynicism and Machiavellian nature of the
plan to put team Billary back in the white house (or is it HillBilly now?) was Karl Rove's plan to install Dubya. However, standing near a the leader doesn't prove you can lead. And, unfortunately if you inherit the infrastructure of the dear leader, it's hard for the people to evaluate what's you and what's the machine. Hillary could easily be as big a failure as Dubya who's path to the presidency she would have more in common with than Bill's. She might have the judgment necessary to be in command hidden in there but it's impossible to measure -- she hasn't stood on her own for many decades. Thinking the machine can be president is the same flawed view that allowed Dubya to slip in.

Personal judgment is what counts - you can't ride coat tails to command. You either have it in yourself or you don't. Clinton hasn't shown it. Obama has. McCain has.

It's either Obama08 or it's McCain08 then Obama12.

Posted by: Mr Judgment | February 13, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why people find Obama inspiring. I've never seen such an uninspiring candidate.

All the guy talks about is how great he is, but everything I've ever read about him indicates he isn't any better than any other politician. In fact, it looks like he gets pushed around by conservatives and special interests more than his fair share.

And his obsession with change. Change to what? The guy doesn't seem passionate about actually doing anything. Now he says, "go check my website if you want to know what I stand for."

So basically, Obama's whole campaign is based on what his 24-year-old speech writer has him say, and what his 22-year-old grad student writes on his website.

It's no wonder that people compare him to Carter. If he doesn't have a backbone, he's going to be ineffectual.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris, when you suggest us oldsters(I guess that means anyone over the age of 50) should get on board with Obama, you neglect to mention just why we won't. Our experience and ability to separate a real candidate-Hillary-from hot air-Obama, is crucial in leading the charge for substance over vapor. She can and will make America a better place for all its citizens, and she will listen to what the average working man and working mom has to say about jobs, health care, child care, and an environment that can sustain our children and grandchildren. Us oldsters have a compelling need to support a candidate that will leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of peace, prosperity, and a safe environment( and food supply)as well as a reduction of our
dependence on oil and gas.
Hillary's message resonates with us oldsters who care about the future.

Posted by: kavanaugh l | February 13, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Judgment, your comment is a foolish talk. Wise judgment comes from experience, without enough experience judgment will be shaky, that's why Obama didn't vote when he wasn't sure. You just explained how Obama will be, Obama will ride coat tails to command. That is most suitable comment for Obama, thank you Mr. judgment.

Posted by: kreisch | February 13, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Mr Kreisch,

Judgment doesn't only come from experience. Otherwise, HRC wouldn't have cast that vote getting us into Iraq.

But the real point is, the reason we don't have dynasties here in the USA is that there is no way to tell if the dear leaders chosen successor has any qualifications what so ever.

Hillary can't be measured on her own. Or do you disagree? If so, what has she done in the last several decades that you can address without reference to Bill?

Posted by: Mr Judgment | February 13, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

"Can you smell what Barack is cookin'?"

Posted by: Redwave | February 13, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

There are lots of males who will say and/or do anything to defeat Hillary Clinton in both parties. They always say it is because they hate "The Clintons" so much. What they are saying is that Hillary is not her own person and can't be different from her husband. Women all know that women are not appendages of their husbands, and some men know it, but there seem to be a large number of men in this country who think women are their husbands.
It is interesting that none of these men seem to offer the slightest clue as to what terrible thing Hillary would do. Nor do they seem to have the slightest clue what wonderful things Obama would do.
This whole anti-Hillary campaign is based on deeply based emotion, which I call sexism. Perhaps they will win this time, but women are paying attention and the desire to elect women to the highest positions in this country will not go away.
Sad that so many men are so backward.

Posted by: Southern Girl | February 13, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

There's much lack of credibility when people speak negatively about Barack Obama, so I've noticed.

Posted by: Erin Write | February 13, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the issue of experience, I heard a bright person say the other day the 20 yrs. in Washington does not necessarily mean that you have meaningful only means that you are older than when you went there! I am at a loss as to where the extensive experience of Hillary has come from. Last I heard from her, it was now up to 35 yrs. of experience. She has been an elected official for a little over 6 years. Obama has been an elected official, responsible to a constituency for 11 years.
I am a school administrator' husband. We discuss almost everything of importance that happens at her work. She constantly seeks my recommendations, and occasionally, even follows them! I know all the people who work for and with her, and I am a professional in the same field of her academic specialty. If I apply for a school administrators job, can I put down her 10 plus years of experience? ONLY if I don't mind being rightfully accused of fraud.
I am frankly not impressed by experience. I am impressed by a willingness to listen and a desire to be surrounded by the brightest and the best without concern of being out someone who does not need yes men or women in his service. and certainly by someone who has not sold out to the special interest. I believe that Obama has shown that judgment, that confidence, that intelligence, and added in a whole bunch of common sense and decency. There has been no question who I was going to vote for for president for a long time. If Obama had not run, I would have written his name in. Let's not lose out on the best opportunity for a unified American that we have had for many a generation.
My last comment on experience. I was raised with the saying...."there is no fool like an old just can't beat experience!" Vote Obama.

Posted by: waynep | February 13, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

The best thing that could happen to Obama is for the Republicans to belittle him as lacking in substance and not having the experience to be president. Haven't they noticed that this strategy has been been used by Hillary Clinton and is failing. 70% of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction. Having experience is not a strong selling point this year. As for substance, Obama was Harvard Law professor, not exactly a dumbbell position. He is smarter and more knowledgeable on a whole range of issues then John McCain who has admitted he knows little about economics.

Posted by: Steven G | February 13, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the only one for the job.

To all the educated illiterates posting on this page...all Democrats are not ignorant. The Republicans and the media alike are filling the American people's head with this crap that this unAmerican (Obama) is so powerful and so All of this and that. Truth of the matter is, they want the weakest link to compete against McCain.


The DNC (superdelegates) will not allow this to happen. Winning all of these small states means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things. Half of the people making these uninformed statements are probably not even homeowners (with bad credit of course). You have no idea what we stand to lose if Osama is the candidate of choice (God forbid). A vote for this unexperienced, can only speak well when someone writes his speeches, non-American is a vote for McCain.

Don't be ignorant all of your life!

Hillary will be the next President. I bet my houses on it!

Posted by: Vanessa | February 13, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

George Bush has been such a complete failure that I will be supporting the Democratic nominee this election - whether its Clinton or Obama. I have lost all faith in the Republican party.

Posted by: Ronald W. Reagan | February 13, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

U go Ronnie !

Posted by: Nancy | February 13, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton states that she is a consummated politician and she has a vast experience! Why can she just demonstrate, assimilate and be a good party player and accept the fact that Senator Obama is the one who will represent the great Democratic Party?

Posted by: katz | February 13, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Ms Southern Girl and others,

Has the buck ever stopped with you? Sure, the spouse talks you through the hard times at work, even through the decisions. And maybe you understand the decision or even think of a better solution. But that second guessing is not the same as being the one who actually makes the decisions with the responsibility for the outcome. Standing next to a leader does not necessarily make you able to lead. But, the Clinton machine, with its connections in government, business, and media wouldn't let that be seen now would it? You suggest that Obama has duped the masses -- but which candidate had the machinery available to actually manage that?

Although little the Hillary has done is separable from Bill, one could look at the campaign management as somewhat revealing because it us under serious scrutiny. Check out the tails of financial mismanagement and imagine what it could mean for the country:

"[Campaign manager Pati Solis] Doyle did not tell Clinton how rapidly the campaign was spending money, according to one campaign official, who said Clinton learned about her financial constraints only after the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8."

If Hillary can't manage her campaign finances, can't keep Bill on a leash, and can't find her message -- how exactly will she lead the country?

It would be cool to have a woman lead - but let her stand on her own two feet and climb to the top on her own merits.

Where's your Judgment?

Posted by: Mr Judgment | February 13, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

sorry, kavanaugh, lots of us oldsters who care about the future are going with obama. i have a few doubts about him, but they don't add up to my certainties about Clinton.

many of us oldsters remember being part of a generation who actually believed we could change the world. too many of us sold out and failed to put our money where our mouths were and work hard for those changes. Lots did, of course, but none of them are running for president.

i'm for letting the next generation take a whack at it. the quality of the experience is more important than the quantity.

Go Barack!

Posted by: cgirard | February 14, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

The paid posters posing as Obama Republicans is very funny. I've seen verbatum posts on other blog sites.

These are volunteers for Obama spewing the talking points as given to them by high-command.

Anyway, do not count billary out yet. This string of rencent losses is all too familiar in Democratic races.

As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates - not the candidate who wins the most states. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He ceded Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale also lost a series of major primaries before winning the nomination, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Ohio, and California. And in 1976, Jimmy Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination, including: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.

So folks, don't shoot the horse yet, it has plenty of race left in it.

The one issue that will haunt the DNC this year is the missing delegates from Florida and Michigan.

If Hillary only get 40% from here on she arrives at the convention with 1600+ delegates and Obama with 1800+.

There aren't enough Super Delegates to get to the magic number 2025 to win. There will be heated arguements over who won the popular vote versus the delegate vote. It could get really nasty. If one wins the popular vote and the other the delegate vote, they both will have a case. Right now Hillary is still ahead in the popular vote and Obama the delegate vote.

What will determine the legitimacy of the candidate.

The only way to settle everything is toss the super delegates and have run-off electionsin Michigan and Florida.

There still more than 60% of the delegates left to harvest in the Democratic race.

Lastly, Billary are the best under the gun. They've been down this road before and keep their composure.

I would not bet your 401K that Obama id inevitable.

Let Dick Morris over at the hill be the one to make an ass of himself. He's declared Obama or Hillary the inevitable several times. Billary has him changing his mind everyday. Talk abot flip-flopping

Posted by: Daniel | February 14, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I believe someone mentioned Hillary's employment on the Nixon Impeachment staff....

Posted by: Yehudit | February 14, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

As a progressive liberal, it is easy for me to vote for Obama. However, I sincerely hope he does work across the aisle to bring about change we all want (I'm guessing we all want good schools, good infrastructure, good standing in the world) and I am totally willing to go along with whatever compromises he sees fit. He understands that America is diverse with diverse interests. I respect his respect for people and he has inspired me to take that respect into my daily life. He is the leader we need to make us see that we are all valid and complex people. In other words, he makes me also want to work across the aisle and makes me have more trust in republicans- an amazing feat coming in the wake of Bush.

Posted by: HM | February 14, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

To Daniel | February 14, 2008 12:26 AM

Do you mean me? Paid by Obama? I'm afraid not. Though I've given him a few hundred.

I'm one of those NYers who has been subject to the Billary ambition to circumvent term limits. Hillary carpetbagged into NY to take an easy seat. I've had a lot of time to think about ho little personal experience she really has.

And then I got to watch her vote for the war while hundreds of thousands of people were in the streets of NY protesting. Was she the voice of the NY then? No... she vote her cynical presidential ambitions.

If that was judgment, it was poor judgment.

Finally, how did all you Hillary supports expect not to tear the party apart when you chose someone more than half the country hated? Why doesn't she now gracefully step aside?

Posted by: Mr Judgment | February 14, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Italy can have him. Talk about a country that needs "unity" geez.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 14, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I am 27 years old and I have never been so excited about politics and choosing our president! I feel so inspired by Obabma. He represents so many good things, and I think he has what our country needs! God Bless Obama and all who support him!

Posted by: Shana | February 14, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

What's with the arguement re. experience?
It's a known fact there are people with so called experience but check out the younger generation what has none and see what they have accomplished. What is needed is someone with intelligence,intellect, and an analytical mind ie someone who can see both sides of a problem and sort it through.
GB has been a miserable incompetent who has run the US into the ground, didn't he have experience? Keep in mind, it's the people ie experts who you surround yourself with, who will create good governemnt. Unfortunately GB surrounded himself with idiots and incompetents like himself hence the mess America is in now.
I am 58 years old, and am for Barack Obama. I say give the younger generation a chance. We have made a mess of it. Maybe they will do better. It certainly can't or won't be any worse than GB and his bunch of morons and war mongers.

Posted by: sandpiper1 | February 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

First point, how bad can it get we have already been through two terms of the worst. I personally do not think that any President can do much in four years. Why not go for fresh and new idea's. I'm going to be 50 this year and I am tired of the status quo. Vote for Obama. If he doesn't live up to his promises, then replace him in four years.

Posted by: TM | February 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Hillary knows the government inside out. So what? Obama can hire that expertise. Her "Giuliani Strategy" campaign strategy is going to fail. Whether McCain is right or not on Iraq is irrelevant. The American people are sick of that war and want out. Obama will be the last man standing. Obama is a campaigner's dream, but his presidency will be timid. On policy his accomdative nature precludes bold strokes. Expect him to undo some of Bush's excesses, but not all. The sickening Surveillance bill passed by the Senate this week opens the door for the government to create a police state. Unfortunatley I don't believe any of the candidates would close it, Obama included. I would like to hear what Obama has to say about wiretapping, waterboarding, Guantanamo and what he will do about them. Media pundits, do you hear me? Please ask the question.

Posted by: Paul C | February 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

To the guy who thinks faux Republicans were paid for by Obama (because we all know the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS)- is it really that hard to believe that Obama can inspire people to cross party lines? If it is, you clearly do not have your finger on the pulse of young political America. There are Dems for McCain as well - just in case you haven't heard that one yet. Please try to talk to people under 35 because I'm pretty sure I'm not an anomaly (or, ya know, a plant).

It's no secret Republicans strongly dislike the Clintons. Yes, the Clintons, because like others have mentioned, it's a twofer. For a person who co-opts her HUSBAND'S run in the White House as her own "experience," it's pretty ironic she wants Americans to believe she's a woman who can stand on her own two feet. Way to show us who "wears the pantsuit," Hil.

Posted by: Over It | February 14, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

BTW - Mr Judgment is an independent in NY. That's why he missed voting against HRC in the NY primary. I wonder what NY these states with closed primaries would look like if independents could be voting for Obama?

Posted by: Mr Judgment | February 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama certainly is inspiring and he is clearly intelligent (which is a change from where we have been for the last eight years), but being a great orator does not necessarily mean a person is the most effective leader. We face enormous problems and someone who knows how to get things done in government is needed. There are things I disagreed with when Clinton as president but he balanced the budget, past welfare reform and established good relations internationally. As one who has contacts in WDC many from both sides of the aisle say how hard working and effective Hillary has been as a Senator working with both Republicans and democrates and she does know her way around the world. I voted for her in the Calif primary but I will vote for whomever is the demoncratic candidate. But good speech making doesn't do it for me. While it would be great to have a black president it would also be great to give a woman the chance. We men haven't done so great particularly lately.

Let's hope for the best.


Posted by: Cliff Benzel | February 14, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

sorry, but Obama is just another of those "feel-good" healers - he has no real voting record to call on, no legislative record and he about the only black man running as a black man one moment and not one running as the black man the next - his wife is running him as black man - he doesn't take money from Federal Lobbyists but does take money from State Lobbyists - come on - is there any difference - isn't a lobbyist a lobyist a lobbyist??

I still strongly and firmly believe that the democrats allowed the news media too much influence - and left the better candidates behind.

When I want to feel good, when I want uplifting I go to church - I expect my President to work his arse off - and this one is going to have to work doubley hard to fix all that George W, messed up. And I just don't see that as Obama - Kennedy is wrong - he's not ready from Day One. He's just not.

Posted by: kec132 | February 14, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Tom Cole's opinion is correct and accurat, I agree with Tom. I am sure Obama is the weakest candidate among half of total candidates. He misled youngsters, they are just out of High Schools, how much do they learned, what kind of experiences they practiced, where did they get their wisdom? We learn the lessons until we die, still people make mistakes, how could possibly those teens can lead our Country, naive and inexperienced Obama should know himself and be humble for our Country. One Superdelegate worth million blind followers. Obama is not ready, people know it. Independent, fake Democrats and Republican are playing the game with election, they don't want the best candidate, they want to destroy Hillary for their childish victory. This is the most important election, we need a strong person who can resolve our problems on day one, Hillary is the only one could do the job for domestic and international issues. McCain is a nice person, still weaker than Hillary politically, like Economy, Education, Healthcare, Immigration and Diplomacy. Honestly Obama is below the level of Hillary's political career and ability, he may have the hope for 2016, it will be good for his Party. Texas, PA and Ohio voters knew who is the best for our Country, I trust them.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | February 15, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Speaking as a foreigner, if Obama is elected President, it will show the world the US has come a long way in terms of civil rights. It will be an inspiration for Americans of all color and the rest of the world to know that you can make it in the USA despite your race.
For this alone, Obama will be a great president. He does not need experience. JFK did not have much either. America has enough talented people to work for an Obama Administration. Obama has a smart mind and will attract the best in the USA. Give him a chance. Many Americans are. Thats why you see all the enthusiasm of the crowds he pulls. The USA is a great nation. You are seeing History being made.

Posted by: Alien | February 15, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I sent Obama a fairly fat check by snail mail a week ago. It has still not cleared the bank. There must be a mountain of mail in Chicago that they can't open fast enough.

Posted by: TigerPaw | February 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks Obama only appeals to feelings and not to intellect, or that he is not extraordinarily intelligent himself, has either never read his writings or else did not understand them after reading.

A reading of Obama's book, THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, will not only reveal how remarkably intelligent he is, able to think outside of so many ideological boxes and "either-or" ways of thinking that characterize our political process. It will also reveal that, unlike Bush's "uniter, not a divider," Obama's goal of bringing people together across partisan and ideological lines to work together for a common purpose is not just talk. He explains the history of how we got into this partisan gridlock that fails to accomplish much of anything and the changes of mindset that must take place to move beyond it. He also explains how out of step Washington's gridlock is with the agendas of ordinary Americans. Obama's EXPERIENCE as a community organizer is very relevant at this juncture, as what he wants to do is mobilize ordinary Americans to put pressure on their elected officials to move beyond ideology and partisan gridlock to actually confronting the problems and issues the common people are concerned about.

Both Obama and Hillary have ideas, proposals, and experience. The key difference is that Obama is a visionary, inspiring leader who can mobilize people to implement his ideas. The Clinton campaign and its supporters can dump on Obama's casting vision (the primary task of leaders, according to all the "leadership" gurus) as "just words" and not action all they want. But where there is no vision, the people perish. Without vision and inspiration, there is only the dog-eat-dog world of partisan politics, and all of Hillary's ideas and "hard work" will be met with paralyzing resistance.

Hillary's speeches reveal that she believes all it takes to bring about change is to work hard enough at it. That naively ignores how hard the forces of resistance will also be working. It is the thinking of a bureaucrat, not a leader. A leader casts a compelling vision and then mobilizes people, energy, and resources (noticed how Obama is raising so much more money than Hillary?) to implement the vision.

Hillary offers the traditional "liberal" (not a dirty word for me) appeal of how she is going to fix people's problems for them and get certain benefits for them. Obama seeks to empower people to work together to change things--to launch a revolutionary movement. It's dependency versus empowerment. It's "what I'm going to do for you" versus "what we're going to do by working together."

Someone expressed it aptly like this:
The Republicans (including McCain, who for all his differences with much of the Republican base is typical in this regard)offer the stern and protective father image, how they're going to keep us safe from terrorists and the like and keep us all in line.
Hillary offers the indulgent mother image, how she's going to take care of our needs and get us healthcare, education, etc.
Obama offers the inspiring leader like Moses image, seeking to lead us to the promised land.
Before someone jumps all over that as a sign of some kind of ego trip, Obama doesn't think he's Moses anymore than Hillary thinks she's our mother or McCain thinks he's our father. It's a METAPHOR! But the point is the different models of leadership--protective, indulgent, or inspirational.

The Bush Administration has done tremendous damage to our economy, the national budget, the environment, and our nation's image and standing in the world, among other things. The problems are too big and the stakes too high to elect another polarizing partisan bureaucrat as President. We need a leader. And we have an opportunity to elect the kind of leader who comes along once in a lifetime. Obama is not just a good speaker. He's a creative thinker and a visionary leader. That's what we need for such a time as this. Let's not blow this chance! Who knows when it will come again?

Posted by: PastorGene | February 15, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

what's with all the self-identified foreigners around here? how about you fix your own countries you dumbfukcs

Posted by: Shanishqua | February 15, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Democrats! Why do you think that McCain is just now starting to attack Obama so ferociously!!!! He knows he stands NO chance against him and would much rather have Hillary to beat upon in the general election. Fool us once (2000 election), shame on them (Republicans). Fool us twice (2004 election), shame on us Democrats. Fool us a third time, may as well become Republican

Posted by: MdDemocrat | February 16, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

barack hussein obama gives me hope without him i would just die

Posted by: teenybopper | February 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company