Clinton, Obama Aides Tangle Over '3 A.M.' Ad

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
The Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns sparred today over which candidate has the experience to handle a national security crisis after exchanging a series of controversial television advertisements on the topic.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton released an advertisement last week that told of a hypothetical 3 a.m. telephone call to the White House and warning, "Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call."

The Clinton campaign and its surrogates were pressed last week to identify a moment when she has faced such a national security crisis, and the question was posed again on several Sunday morning talk shows.

"[Y]ou don't get tested at 3 a.m. with a phone call like that unless you're the president," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton aide, acknowledged on ABC's "This Week." "You look at a person's totality of experience, the kind of judgments they've made, who has supported them, what kind of support that they've had."

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign responded to the ad by suggesting that Clinton had already faced such a moment and made the wrong decision, a point that Obama aide David Axelrod reiterated Sunday.

"On the most important question that Senator Clinton has had to deal with in foreign policy -- the red phone moment for her, the vote on the war in Iraq -- she gave the wrong answer," Axelrod said on ABC. "Senator Obama gave the right answer [and] said he thought it was a disaster to go into Iraq."

Wolfson argued, however, that Obama's early opposition to the war was not matched by his actions once he was in Congress.

"[He didn't do anything to try to stop the war until he began running for president," Wolfson said. " ... So, yes, a powerful speech, powerful words, backed up by no action."

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a Clinton supporter, argued that the Iraq vote should not be considered Clinton's "red phone" moment.

"Iraq was essentially a considered judgment that was made, rightly or wrongly. It was a considered judgment. It was discussed on the floor of the Senate. It wasn't a missile on the way to the shores of the United States at 3 in the morning," she said on "Fox News Sunday."

Axelrod replied that Obama has steadily opposed the Iraq war since Day One in the Senate, saying he had introduced a bill in January 2007 to begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. He said Clinton opposed that bill.

And Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), an Obama supporter, argued that the Clinton advertisement asked the wrong question.

"The basic question is not whether the president can wipe the sleep out of his or her eyes and think clearly, but the judgment that they'll use once that phone call is understood," Durbin said on Fox.

The Clinton campaign also continued to push Obama to answer questions about his ties to Antoin Rezko, an Obama friend and onetime campaign contributor who goes on trial tomorrow in Chicago on corruption charges.

Wolfson listed questions he'd like answered: "[H]ow many fund-raisers did Mr. Rezko throw for Senator Obama? What did Senator Obama do for Mr. Rezko? Did he write letters for him? What projects of his did he support? How many business meetings did he attend where Mr. Rezko had business associates there? What are the -- one more important one -- what are the full details of this very unusual real estate transaction that Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama entered into?"

Axelrod said the Rezko matter is old news.

"There have been 255 stories done on this issue, many by the Chicago media, others by the national media. All these questions have been asked. All these questions have been answered," Axelrod said.

Campaign Biases? Feinstein said Clinton, despite her Washington experience, still confronts a gender bias in the campaign.

"I'm amazed at the number [of newspaper columns] that are spent on really picayune things about Senator Clinton -- her hair, her suits," Feinstein said. "And I think some of this just drives toward the insecurity of having a woman running for this office."

Durbin agreed that Clinton faces gender bias, but added that it was not more than the bias Obama faces as an African American candidate.

"Understand that African Americans have also faced many, many burdens and obstacles, and Barack Obama has been facing that during the course of this campaign," he said.

Richardson Says Race 'Too Long': The highly coveted endorsement of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson remained out of reach for the Democratic candidates this morning, but he left open the possibility of endorsing one before Tuesday's primaries, and he expressed concern about the sharp exchanges in the race.

"I'm legitimately torn. I had a long history, a positive history, with both Clintons. Senator Obama, you know, he inspired me as I was running against him. He's got some unique qualities," Richardson said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"The concern that I have is the bickering that took place between those two very fine senators is going on too long," he said.

By Post Editor |  March 2, 2008; 2:29 PM ET
Previous: Nader Hopes Third Presidential Run Is the Charm | Next: Mich., Fla. Dilemma Consumes Democrats


Please email us to report offensive comments.

With respect to gender and race biases, they are both deep-rooted and hard to overcome. However, during the presidential campaign the media have reflected and contributed a great deal to the anti-Clinton gender bias, whereas this has not been the case--so far--with respect to anti-Obama racial bias.
In short, Senator Feinstein is right and Senator Durbin wrong in the context of this campaign.
For more on gender and race bias in the media, read:

Posted by: Brigitte N. | March 2, 2008 3:14 PM

I'm glad to hear the party bigwigs saying what we lowly news readers have known for weeks... that this campaign has gone on too long. Unless she pulls off some shocker blowouts in OH and TX, Clinton will still be way down in delegates, with little prospect of making them up. Time to bow out.

Posted by: frededias | March 2, 2008 3:28 PM

if anybody thinks Obama hasn't been subjected to horrible horrible racial bias THROUGHOUT his campaign they are deliberately deceiving themselves. The difference-Obama soldiers on and DOESN'T WHINE ABOUT IT. It speaks VOLUMES about his integrity and courage and STRENGTH. He NEVER tries to go the sympathy route. What A MAN.
Also, don't think for a second that Obama IS ALWAYS aware, always being scrutinized excrutiatingly about anything he says that can be seen as racial in tone. Look at how they slammed Michelle Obama for a thesis SHE WROTE IN COLLEGE. He has to always be aware of how his conduct is toward Clinton, but she can scold him like a LITTLE BOY (shame on you Barack Obama) with a WHITE MAN IN THE BACKGROUND NODDING AGREEMENT, and it gets played NONSTOP on Cnn, etc for days with no negative result. Imagine if Obama did that! My goodness! He always treats her like a lady, pulling her chair back, complimenting her. And she complains complains complains. When he didn't insist ENOUGHT that she was likable he was hounded in the press, until he said he should have rephrased as you're PLENTY likable. Yes he always has to aware that he's a black man and there are seemingly insurmountable pitfalls but he's navigated them well. I'm proud ofh his conduct.
And believe me, a black man has to watch out, cause he can't be seen as being down on a white woman. That is instant death for him, and the press, white men, etc will come to her defense everytime as they've done and are doing now. I'm tired of it but that's the way of the world.

Posted by: nona | March 2, 2008 3:30 PM

Who would you want answering that phone at 3 AM?

Jay Rockefeller, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has his answer:

Posted by: mw1811 | March 2, 2008 3:44 PM

"You look at a person's totality of experience, the kind of judgments they've made"

And when you look you see a train wreck. In Hillary Clinton's personal and professional life the judgments she has made are horrific. She has no relevant experience: Why are we still hearing all this merde? go away.

Posted by: james d granata | March 2, 2008 3:45 PM

American democracy calls for the Democratic nomination process to continue for all the remaining states to have their say and then add the numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

Then the superdelegates should decide the most qualified, experienced candidate for the presidency and that would be Hillary Clinton. That's American democracy.

Gov. Richardson should continue to sit on the sidelines and keep his mouth shut.

With the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine, rational Democrats must support Hillary with regular contributions for her to make a powerful stand against this conspiracy.

Hillary Clinton is about the future of America; she is the qualified, experienced, visionary leader America needs to make change real and restore America to prosperous times and restore our good standing in the world.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2008 3:52 PM

Why the Washington Post hasn't do fact checking an allegation that Diane Feinstein did smoke crack and have sex with another man( Larry Sinclair) in 1999?

Posted by: nicekid | March 2, 2008 3:55 PM

Riiiinnnggg, Riiiinnnggg, Riiiinnnggg, Riiiinnnggg, Riiiinnnggg . . .

Camera pans to clock showing 3:00 a.m.

Hillary sits up in her half of the double bed, and picks up the red telephone. The other half of the bed is mussed, but empty. She speaks.

"Now where did that man go tonight? Off cattin' around again, just when I need him most . . . "

Posted by: oldhonky | March 2, 2008 3:59 PM

What publications has Ms. Feinstein been reading? I've been obsessively following all the news links (from google's news category) on the campaign, and I haven't seen any mention of Clinton's hair since the 90s. I'm sure that gender discrimination still exists. However, this tendency to see a misogynist behind every bush is not doing women any favors.

Posted by: 50ishFem | March 2, 2008 4:00 PM

The jury's in already if you read the way European newspapers comment on Hillary Clinton's campaign:

This goes on for almost a week now, in Europe the Hillary Clinton campaign is so yesterday. There are a number of reasons why she lost but one is predominant for me: Barack Obama is better. All the inevitability and the states(wo)manish demeanor were just the colourful facade of a not so good candidate. What I am sorry for is the fact that she has damaged the cause of women running for office.

Posted by: old_europe | March 2, 2008 4:05 PM

"The concern that I have is the bickering that took place between those two very fine senators is going on too long,"
The renaissance man and major suck-up Richardson, who, of course is waiting to commit when he is sure of who can appoint him to the cabinet or ask him to be vice president is wrong as usual. The only fine woman senator is Dianne Feinstein (sorry Senator Feinstein).

james d granata

Posted by: jganymede | March 2, 2008 4:06 PM

This so called anti-Hillary bias is actually the media correctly responding to Hillary's attacks, multiple personalities (I'm honored to be with Barack vs. meet me in Ohio, etc.), unstable personality, shady campaigning, etc. She is a train wreck.

Her judgement is flawed. She reminds me of Bush in some ways: 1) does not admit mistakes 2) does not answer questions directly 3) plays the fear card 4) tries to put down her opponent... etc.

Barack clearly is the one most in control of himself, with better judgement, most capable of responding correctly in times of crisis.

Pack it in Hillary, your not even close to Obama in any way that counts.

Posted by: Jukeboy | March 2, 2008 4:13 PM


Considering how many Clinton supporters, and others, have consistently used Obama's middle name in a demeaning way, I would respectfully say that you are wrong.

Posted by: Brendan | March 2, 2008 4:20 PM

It is always surprising to me this generation worshiping celebrities and medias than realities.

The Clinton's have done a lot for this nation,especially for middle class American.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Come off it noma Black racism is exceeeded only by Hispanic racism!

Posted by: What a joke | March 2, 2008 4:37 PM

Come off it noma Black racism is exceeeded only by Hispanic racism!

Posted by: What a joke | March 2, 2008 4:40 PM

More women to lead our Nations.......

Posted by: Matthias Hanika | March 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Jesse Helms used similar tactics against Harvey Ghant using an ad that appealed to the baser fears of North Carolinians. Fear mongering is fear mongering is fear mongering is ...

Posted by: LongMemory | March 2, 2008 4:55 PM







HE SAYS: "WHO"????

Posted by: Thinker | March 2, 2008 4:58 PM

Hillary gets what she deserves on this one. It seems to me that it is her campaign that is going negative. Additionally, an ad indicating something bad happening at 3 A.M. that the president has to respond to, such as a WMD attack or something of this nature, How is this not fearmongering just like Dubya does?

I doubt Hillary has faced more adversity and bias than Obama. Last week the republicans were floating a photo of him wearing Somali tribal attire, taken when he was in Somalia, and then they combine this image with his middle name and try to paint him as some sort of muslim extremist. Until the opposition party tries to paint HRC as a terrorist, I think Obama's got her beat on this one.

I think Hillary has faced more media "hostility", if you can call it that, because she had been the Heir-Apparent to the democratic nomination, and things aren't going her way. Certainly, when you are expected to win early and big, and you don't, you are gonna be fielding unexpected and unpleasant questions.

Posted by: Joe M. | March 2, 2008 5:11 PM

I find it strange that Obama did not have the good judgement to know that being involved with Rezko and the purchase that house of his might not look quite above board, but he says he had good judgement about going to war in Iraq He must have a split personality. he is self centered overachever promising the moon to a bunch of people.He talks a good game but thats all it is talk.

Posted by: DEK | March 2, 2008 5:35 PM

Hillary is losing because she has run a terrible, blundering campaign. Skip the caucus states? Count on clinching on Super Tuesday and don't prepare in the next batch of states? Change message regularly?

Sure there has been some sexism out there, but if not for the support she has received from white women, many of them -- like the white woman I am married to -- backing her because they want to see a woman in the White House -- her candidacy would have collapsed much earlier. On net the gender votes have gone in her favor.

Posted by: lostintranslation | March 2, 2008 5:38 PM

"With the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine, rational Democrats must support Hillary with regular contributions for her to make a powerful stand against this conspiracy." --Posted by: [anonymous] | March 2, 2008 03:52 PM

Would that be a vast Right Wing conspiracy, by any chance? Perhaps a vast Cult Wing conspiracy? A vast Hope Wing conspiracy?

Enough excuses. Your candidate is simply losing. She's run a mismanaged, dysfunctional, poorly organized campaign. Eventually you're going to have to face facts: It's the candidate, stupid.

Posted by: Gabe Small | March 2, 2008 5:39 PM

I am afraid of Mrs Clinton answering the phone at 3:00am and handing the phone to her husband. "Its for you dear."
I do not trust her. She has stayed in a marrige for political expediency to get where she is now. Not for me, but for her.
If she goes back to the senate and shows me that she has returned to being the young republican turned democrat that did so much before marrying slick willy..Then I will vote for her..but not now not this year...Not until I believe she cares for our nation instead of for power and glory.

Posted by: jimw | March 2, 2008 5:45 PM

"Sure there has been some sexism out there, but if not for the support she has received from white women, many of them -- like the white woman I am married to -- backing her because they want to see a woman in the White House -- her candidacy would have collapsed much earlier. On net the gender votes have gone in her favor." --Posted by: lostintranslation | March 2, 2008 05:38 PM

I totally agree. I think the numbers showing that Clinton has more support among women, and less among men, than Obama have been analyzed totally incorrectly.

I think it shows a bias TOWARDS Clinton that she would NOT have if she were a MAN.

My experience supports this anecdotally. The Clinton supporters I know personally are typically women who see the two candidates as more or less on par, but they are sticking with Clinton because she is a woman.

The Obama supporters I know, on the other hand, represent a much broader cross-section of ages, genders, colors, and backgrounds, and typically see Obama as a much stronger candidate on the merits alone.

In my admittedly biased estimation, the latter would seem to be the much more rational and clear-eyed position.

Posted by: Gabe Small | March 2, 2008 5:50 PM

yeah what a joke...blacks are racists. wow. tell u what, let's compare the results WHITES have suffered as a result of black racism throughout American history with those blacks have suffered. let's do that.

Posted by: nona | March 2, 2008 6:01 PM

and that stupid stupid Gloria Steinem had the nerve to complain that black men got the right to vote b4 white women!!!
yea, but after they got that right, were hundreds of thousands of them lynched, burned alive, castrated, hung, thrown out of their homes, had their homes burned to the ground, shot?? didnt think so. this is not a good way to get sympathy imo.

Posted by: nona | March 2, 2008 6:06 PM

Ummm...Britain's first female Prime Minister was a real gem...a heartless, cold, female canine who had a penchant too for invading foreign countries. As a female single income earner with children it irks me that women like Hillary Clinton continue to use the gender card when it suits them. She presents as a privileged and highly educated white woman who clearly has a born to rule demeanour...however she is graceless and totally lacks humility, incidentally qualities that abound in her opponent- Barack Obama. Face it! she is clueless when it comes to class and race. No way! should we ever consider her decision making ability as exemplar ...evident by her standing by her man when he was caught lying and dogging around with other women...the Whitewater controversy and her support for the Iraq war ...what a loser! The only way that old, whingeing, bitter woman can redeem herself is by withdrawing from the race...and go on sabbatical and write another book about how great she is! But as we know self proclamation is not necessarily a true or accurate reflection of actuality!

Posted by: Saffron | March 2, 2008 6:41 PM

The really ironic thing about Hillary Clinton's ad is that it looks like she "Xeroxed" it from a McCain supporter's ad which has been posted on for at least a month:

Posted by: ickymarsh | March 2, 2008 6:46 PM

From today's "Head of State"

"Sunday, March 02, 2008
Authentic Change

The WP reports today that Obama has "thrown away the script" in Ohio, turning from his stump speech to a series of town hall meetings.

Ohio and Texas are tight. The contest is too close to call. This is, for a campaign, a "red phone" moment.

Note how Obama responds.

Instead of an array of tactical shifts in persona, Obama shows the strength and fortitude that he has demonstrated all along--in a kind of reverse Rove (recall that Rove was famous for taking his adversary's greatest strength and attacking it) taking his greatest ability and putting it to the side, moving from score to improvisation, to further answer the questions of the people--something he has done all along the campaign trial, but now is putting aside his greatest strength to emphasize.

Note what he could have done:

He could have gone on the attack, derogating Hillary's past through the ad hominem methods all too recently seen. He could have attempted to change the presentation of his personality, in order to find the persona that consultants recommend, changing his tone, his emotions, shifting through traits like a anxious shuffle through a deck of cards, searching for the combination that would meet the seeming demands of the day.

In a moment of pressure--at 3 .A.M.--he could have responded with panic and artifice.

Instead, he moves *away* from his strength, and presents himself simply before the people.

This is judgment, which arises from a known and consistent self. It does not arise, despite experience, from a self that uncertain, fearful, and therefore driven by fear, to change under the pressures of the moment.

This is what will count when genuine moments of crisis occur in our future evenings, in our 3 A.M. moments, and in the early dawn."

Head of State

Posted by: Robert Hewson | March 2, 2008 6:55 PM

This has been over for a while now. Watching Hillary Clinton supporters blame everyone else but Hillary Clinton and her campaign for their loss is truly sad. There was never any core message other than it's Hillary's turn. She campaigned only in blue states, so she is not in good shape to claim all the disaffected Republicans this time around. She ran out of money at one point! She spent the month of February both losing everything to and talking constantly about Barack Obama. That is a losing campaign. When Bill Clinton said she has to win both Texas and Ohio or else get out of it, that is a mercy killing right there. She could actually win both Texas and Ohio and still fall further behind Obama in total delegates.

The charge the media is against her is ludicrous. She took a public tantrum ("Shame on you Barack Obama!) recently that should have disqualified her from being President all on its own. The media has continued to say things like "she's a fighter" and "we can't count her out" when Barack Obama clearly has more than 50% of the delegates. She's already been fired long ago and everyone is giving her a chance to quit and she's like "I'll continue in spite of you all!" It's a little too much like Little Lord Bush.

And I have to say, if Hillary Clinton had ever taken this campaign seriously, like really considered the possibility that she would lose, then she would have bought some suits that were designed in this century. It was truly sad to see her showing up to debates dressed like a Republican Governor's first lady. She ran on yesterday in every way and her suits were symbolic of it.

Posted by: Hamranhansenhansen | March 2, 2008 7:02 PM

It's not hard to figure out Ms. Obama,s comment about at last feeling proud to be an American. All one has to do is go to the Obama,s church's website. One of the church doctrines is for it's members to stay "TRUE" to their mother country. Do we want a first family that stays true to any other country than the one they represent (as in America). It is so sad that everyone must tip toe around important issues so as to not offend the so called first Africain American president, thought his mother was white, so why has he allowed the media and his supporters to dish her, can't say that or you are labeled a racist. Can't use his full name or you are a instilling a fear factor into the race. Give me a break. If he is so ashamed of his middle name I suggest he change it. As far as his bridging America with the middle east because of his Muslim roots ( his father was a non-practicing muslim making Obama a muslim by birth), Obama committed the bigeest sin a muslim can commit by becoming a christian. Punishable by death. Just what we need. His campaign has been so nasty ( his supporters constantly booing at Clinton's name) that Clinton supporters will not get behind him in the general election, this writer included. Mcain is a moderate and independent enough of the republican that he will get my vote over the inexperienced Obama.

Posted by: Patrick | March 2, 2008 7:41 PM

The voters need to realize that H.R. Clinton will do anything to get elected. This video clearly shows Bill Clinton telling the voting public that they need to vote for the person that supports hope and reject the candidate that uses fear tactics.

And who aired a commercial about a 3am phone call?

Posted by: justthetruth | March 2, 2008 7:45 PM

Voters...please understand that politicians will do and say anything to get elected. Here's a primary example.

Posted by: whiterosesforme | March 2, 2008 7:50 PM

I sincerely hope Bill Richardson, despite his longstanding relationship with the Clintons, recognizes that the "bickering" to which he refers is almost entirely promulgated by HRC, that she is now running an almost entirely negative campaign (befitting the Republicans),and that Obama is attempting, despite the distractions coming from HRC, is attempting to run an uplifting, positive campaign.

Posted by: Preston Winters | March 2, 2008 8:18 PM

The Clint "Red Phone" Ad is almost exactly the same as one posted for McCain by a McCain supporter over a month ago on YouTube. See:

It even has the ssme time of the call, 3 AM. Did the Clinton campaign "Xerox" a McCain YouTube ad? Sure looks like it. Watch them both.

Posted by: Buzz | March 2, 2008 8:29 PM

You just have to ask yourself, "Who exactly does Bill Richardson think he is? Is he another Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? Tom Daschle? And Dick Durbin can just take his opinion and shove it!

I support Hillary Clinton in words and $$$. This race will not be over on Tuesday! The nomination will be determined by the delegates at the convention in Denver.

Posted by: Fred C Dobbs | March 2, 2008 8:40 PM

Examples of media BIAS are found when you are HilLIARY Clintoon in a debate with several other men, and since you are HilLIARY Clintoon, you get an opportunity to be FREQUENTLY asked and/or respond to MOST debate questions asked of several contestants early on, in multiple debating contests.

(Consequently, the majority of HilLIARy's male opponents got ignored throughout subsequent debates and eventually had to quit early because of the advantages she gained in that process.)

Or, media BIAS is when -

HilLIARY gets to lose 11 straight contests in a row, but she gets to continue on in the contest with little or no media criticism and much media support.


HilLIARy can use the media to attempt to promote (and or reset) standards for victory, that she dosen't have to abide by herself.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2008 8:48 PM

Clinton keeps pushing on Rezko, which has already been examined six ways to Sunday, but how come she refuses to give back the $170,000 in donations she accepted from International Profit Associates (IPA)?

The federal government has accused the Illinois firm of brazen sexual harassment including sexual assaults of 103 women who were victimized for years.

The managing director of the firm who has a criminal record (grand larceny) and was disbarred in New York, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women, but Clinton refuses to return the money.

She says it's because the case hasn't been settled, can she claim to support women and yet ignore them in this self-serving way? Numerous other politicians (Cuomo and Ted Kennedy among them) have returned money they received from this firm.

Posted by: Suze2 | March 2, 2008 9:02 PM

whiterosesforme, stop flogging the debunked CTV story on some supposed secret call by Obama re NAFTA (by the way, supposedly Hillary was in on the call, too).
"A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of NAFTA.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.

God, the Clinton forces will go to any lengths, eh?
Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | March 2, 2008 9:12 PM

Obama is dismissing Clinton's recent ad as fear-mongering. After watching the video of Obama answering a question from a woman in Iowa who asked, "I want to know specifically what you would do to protect this country from terrorism, and are we going to close the borders, and are we going to get rid of the illegal immigrants? Some of his comments were:

"...don't think that I care any less than Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney about making sure that my daughters don't get blown up."

"I live in Chicago. It's a much more likely target than Grundy County for the next terrorist attack"

..."this attitude that all Muslims are out to get us, and our only job is to think militarily and we can't find ways of creating an understanding with these countries, then we are destined to have an ongoing war, and we might as well sign up our young people now because it won't stop. It won't stop with Iran. We'll just keep on going and our country will be less safe over the long..." He did not answer the rest of her question.

Some people may not think this is fear-mongering. I do. People in Chicago and parents of our college graduates and non-college young people may be fearful.

Also, I didn't make a typo on the word Iran. That is what he said.

I saw this video on Morning Joe and YouTube. Never saw it anywhere else. On YouTube, the video title is Barack Obama Answers National Security Questions.

Posted by: M. A. | March 2, 2008 9:15 PM

Oh...Don't worry... Sen. Obama will never have to worry about the 3 A.M. Call. He will not get to receive the call this time. It will be either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. John McCain.

Posted by: Joe | March 2, 2008 9:30 PM

Oh...Don't worry... Sen. Obama will never have to worry about the 3 A.M. Call. He will not get to receive the call this time. It will be either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. John McCain.

Posted by: Joe | March 2, 2008 09:30 PM

===We can only pray.....

Posted by: Trudi | March 2, 2008 10:04 PM

Senior Clinton aide Howard Wolfson says that "the kind of judgments" she's made qualify Hillary for the enormous responsibilities of a President of the United States.

What judgments? Her failed health care plan?
Her support for waging the way on Iraq? Her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution looking toward an attack on Iran?

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 2, 2008 10:16 PM

Mrs. Clinton said she was "not trying to scare people." But, she said, "there's a big difference between giving speeches about national security and giving orders as commander in chief."

1st Sen.Clinton is really trying to scare people. But it's not working this time, because people are more informed today. Maybe she is living in the past. I do give her credit for some things, like I do think she is smart.

2nd I don't think she is any smarter then Sen. Obama and I don't think there is a difference between them, especially as to who answers the phone. Neither of them have any experience at that sort of thing and most Presidents don't. That's why they have Top Advisors. Most people know that about the Commander in Chief.
I do think she talks a lot more and I believe she really likes to talk. A lot of women do. They like to talk and talk and talk and over emphasize more on issues.

I must say Sen. Obama has run a very impressive campaign, which has been a huge sign of good judgement.

He reached out to young people in a big way. He was the first to encourage the young to get involved in the election process.

He was the first to encourage donors to support him by way of the inter-net.

He was the first to encourage all races to come together and this is the short list of things he has done and of course we support his platform issues.

So I would say he is a leader, not a follower and we all witnessed this with our own eyes.

Posted by: Peace | March 2, 2008 10:28 PM

Please open the link below to sign the petition against the distasteful and unfavorable treatment that CNN has displayed toward the democratic nominee Senator Hilary Clinton.

It is highly unfair and discriminatory to present a candidate in the light in which she has been consistently shown, and it is time for CNN to re-examine their approach in the way in which they choose to report the forthcoming primaries both on the air and on their website.

To access the petition and sign, use the link below.

Posted by: badger3 | March 2, 2008 10:29 PM

As a 59 year old female physician who was extremely active in the women's movement and who now serves our veteran population, I am appalled by the way Hillary Clinton, and her supporters like Dianne Feinstein continue to play the gender and sympathy card and have tried to manipulate women to get them to vote for Senator Clinton for the presidential nomination.

Senator Clinton is simply not the best candidate and the presidency is not owed to her because she is a woman. The voters get to decide who the best candidate is and if she continues to lose and does not get out of the race she will undermine the unity of the Democratic Party and give the Republicans the advantage.

I have lived in Washington DC since 1978, and have lived through the drama of the Clinton years in the White House where Hillary Clinton was so arrogant she would not listen to physicians who could have helped her get a health care plan done. I watched her become a Senator of NY by displacing another woman who had 6 years of experience to Mrs. Clintons zero experience. Senator Clinton didn't seem to think it was important to be a sister then.

I watched her vote for the war in Iraq not because she was uninformed but because she thought it was the politically opportunistic thing to do. I knew it was wrong as did so many people but she still has not apologized when all her other colleagues have. Now she has the absolute nerve to tell us how much she cares about our veterans. Vietnam vets are still suffering from that war and now our new young limbless veterans with PTSD will be suffering for decades to come.

Despite all this, I actually thought at first I might be able to support her as presidential candidate because she is smart and did some good work in the senate but when she brought Bill in and started to rely on her "35 years of experience" just to win, I knew that she was still the flawed insecure candidate who has still not found herself who wants to win more than she wants to serve and will divide us to get what she wants. Now that she has gone so negative and has displayed such poor judgment in running her campaign, I know that will have to hold my nose to vote for her if she wins the nomination.

I would love to see a woman president someday and our generation has paved the way for that possibility but not such a flawed candidate as Hillary Clinton. There are several younger women governors and senators right now who have stood on their own two feet and who will be able to break that glass ceiling and who will be great models for our daughters.

If Hillary Clinton has any class she would get out of the race sooner rather than later and make way for the new generation who doesn't need to be so combative, is not so sexist or racist and who might actually be able to get things done. I am proud that our baby boomer struggles have made the way for our younger counterparts and now it is their turn to lead.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2008 10:31 PM

I am kind of surprised when Clinton goes away unchallenged with this experience issue. I don't know what kind of experience she is talking about. When was the last time she accomplished something worthy when it comes to foriegn affairs. Now, I came to realize that why most people can't stand this woman. She is really a power hungry and calcualating woman who is willing to say or do anything possible as far as it serves her purpose of grabbing power .And given the kind of multiple personas she has shown within a few days it is really hard to predict this woman and what potentially she can do, God forbid, as president. I can't sleep for a single day trusting this woman given her character and judgement in this dangerous world she it trying to depict for us . She is really dangerous.

Posted by: Adu | March 2, 2008 10:42 PM

Obama - "The campaign is not about tearing each other down, but lifting the country up - that's change."

HilLIARY - No we can't....No we won't. (WHEN will she get it?)

Obama - Yes we can....Yes we will!!!!

Obama - OEight

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2008 11:22 PM

I agree with all of Obama's comments in the video excerpted above by MA.

MA, it is not fear-mongering to criticize fear-mongering. It is hopeful to suggest that there is a way other than that proposed by the party of permanent war. His point is that those who would disengage from that permanent war feel the stakes just as acutely. We do.

Go Obama!

Posted by: ajacobs | March 2, 2008 11:23 PM

Dianne Feinstein? Who would want that endorsement? Check out her latest votes (FISA); she's become more of a Republican than even Hillary or Bill. Some of the Clintonistas on this thread think she'll win in Denver, and that it's ok for the supers to overturn the will of the people. That would be political suicide! WTF? She's already lost more than 50% of the delegates. Now she's threatening to sue Texas over how they run their Primacaucus. She could care less about damaging the party. I think she secretly wants McStain to win, so she can run again in 4 years. If Obama wins, his VP will be running in 8 years, no hope for Hillary. I live in Denver. It will be mighty ugly if they kill this movement and take it away from the people. Notice I didn't say they would take it from Obama, but we the people, the same people Hilldog ignored when she was in the big states. By the way, Obama beat her here 2 to one. Adios already!

Posted by: GMan | March 2, 2008 11:25 PM

The Dallas Morning News is reporting that the Clinton campaign is instructing its volunteers to elbow their way into controlling the caucus voting procedure in each Texas precinct on Primary night. The Obama campaign does not use that tactic according to its volunteers. Read for yourself at

Posted by: Felipe Mendez | March 2, 2008 11:27 PM

A nuclear attack on the United States occurs in the middle of the night (or at any time of day for that matter) and you're telling me Hillary is going to know what to do? I don't care whether you've been in Congress for 20 years, that doesn't qualify you to deal with national security issues of that magnitude. Neither Obama nor Hillary has any experience that would inform decisions about a national security crises. That's what we've got an entire executive bureaucracy and military advisers for, to help make these kind of decisions.

Then again, if the phone's ringing cause it actually is a nuclear attack, we're probably all screwed anyway.

Posted by: Etrnallybored | March 2, 2008 11:34 PM

Enough of Rezko and Obama already! Which American can say they dont have ANY knowledge of a crook? Not the Hispanics - even the ones from Cuba knew Fidel Castro! And there is Noriega, and Chavez the list goes on...What Black American doesnt know a crook? Even when they are innocent black men are locked up in Jail...which Politician in America can say they NEVER had dealings with crooks? Not ANY currently in the Congress and Senate...were NONE of them friends with Martha Stewart and the ENRON guys? So what is all the fuss about a younger Obama knowing a crook?

We all better pray that HILLARY doesnt make the nomination because if it is knowledge of CROOKS that is going to break the Presidency, she has a lot of baggage to unload...White Water, etc...if all you can find to say about Obama is that half crazy Louis Farrakhan "endorses" him and that he made a bad deal with a land are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. He is being very polite, or maybe, since he is younger than I am, he might not remember all the Muck the Clintons have dragged us through - Mrs Clinton included.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 2, 2008 11:56 PM

at 3 oclock in the morning i can only trust hillary.
obama's camp forced the black voters to black mail the super delegates and John Lewis switched to obama not by choice but forces to do it. this is an act that is very typical to the talibans

Posted by: clinsupor | March 3, 2008 1:22 AM

""Senior Clinton aide Howard Wolfson says that "the kind of judgments" she's made qualify Hillary for the enormous responsibilities of a President of the United States.

What judgments? Her failed health care plan?
Her support for waging the way on Iraq? Her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl resolution looking toward an attack on Iran? ""

what did obama do??? did not vote for anything did nothing.

Posted by: clinsupor | March 3, 2008 1:28 AM

Hillary thought it perfectly legitimate to use a fake crisis in a "hypothetical" national security alert: red phone, scary 3a.m. phone call. Yet she got defiant when Tim Russert asked her a question during the debate in Ohio: she answered that it was a "hypothetical" question that he made up. This was another example of the arrogant Hillary wanting to control every question put to her. Notice that so far nobody has dared to ask her "Hillary, why did "you" miss out on the importance of Osama bin Laden when you were co-prez with Bill?" She has guardedly avoided the name of Osama bin Laden, so it will be a touchy explosive subject when someone finally confronts her. So much for being able to defend our country, so much for good judgment. Eight years of terrorist acts took place during their two terms. Now, a RED phone, so not funny. So Hillary!

Posted by: CaliGram | March 3, 2008 1:45 AM

How can one say with a serious that Hillary has faced more discrimination for her gender than Obama has for his race?

Obama has been fighting the Muslim rumor throughout his candidacy. He has also had to answer about Louis Farrakhan, his pastor, and the notion that he is a black candidate. Hillary and her supporters have eagerly spread the Hispanic/Black divide as well as the Asian/Black divide and the Jews/Black divide. In addition Obama because he is a black man has had his qualifications questioned even though he has a law degree from Harvard, was the president of Harvard law review, spent 8 years in Illinois senate, and 3 years in U.S. senate. He has more years of elected office experience than John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Obama hasn't ever complained, he has worked harder, learned from his mistakes and that is why he is winning. Hillary and her supporters are just being sore losers.

Posted by: AfroBaby | March 3, 2008 4:01 AM

When the red phone rings the presidents first reaction should be to raise the defcon level to its appropriate need to meet the threat, then sit down with the joint chiefs of staff and intelligence and decide an answer. Thats presidential, anything else is nonsense. A person that does not read the intelligence before making an important vote is not ready to answer that red phone on day one regardless of experience. A military hero, coming from a family of military heroes, that read the intelligence, but still voted with draft dodging neocons over the sage advice of the joints chiefs of staff, is not ready on day one to answer the red phone. Experience having better judgement on day one is a fairy tale that should be put to rest.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 3, 2008 4:22 AM

Obama has received some bad coverage with some good, Clinton has received more bad coverage with some good. Clinton with far more skeletons in her closet has not received as much extra bad as she has extra skeletons. The only attack with meat against him was Farrakan's support. Hillary forced him to give it up and give his donation to charity. Her attack of Bomb Pakistan has backfired badly with the two successful drone attacks against Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Her not releasing her tax return, and not thinking about filing separately, was a mistake with Bubba's coin made helping arabs buy America. I think she is losing more votes hiding it than if it were to be released.

Posted by: Jimbo | March 3, 2008 4:42 AM

Obama made some mistakes early, but now by far is running the best campaign. He has caught breaks, not of his doing to push well ahead of Clinton. MI and FL early votes would have gone to Hillary, not so sure now with a re vote. Bubba put his foot in his mouth in SC and what was a 60-40 black vote split has turned into 90-10. Edwards had to drop out for Obama to have any chance and he did early. Every time Hillary attacks Barack he becomes a better candidate and she loses electorate.

Posted by: Jimbo | March 3, 2008 5:03 AM

WbPaBe r u crazzy? I told u! I can't read!

Posted by: zxevil137 | March 3, 2008 5:38 AM

Someone using the name "Thinker" is actually screamingly upset because supposedly Afghanistan is waiting desperately for a meeting of the Subcommittee on European Affairs? (That is the subcommittee Clinton's been harping about you know.)

God save us from these spam bot fools.

Posted by: Fred Couples | March 3, 2008 5:40 AM

I'm having a real problem with Clinton's math and 35 years of "experience" claim as a valid reason she would be better than Obama. I truly do not see how that claim is even remotely possible.

How can a 60 year old woman who spent part of her youth as a Goldwater girl and 16 years as corporate lawyer and board director/apologist for union busting companies like Wal-Mart possibly claim 35 years of experience relevant to being the Democratic presidential candidate? Experience relevant to being a candidate for the Republicans maybe - but certainly not Democrats.

It's mathematically impossible unless her "experience" began when she under 10, even if you count 100% of the 8 years as first lady, including every single second of the ceremonial bs that goes with that role. If you subtract most of those years because she was NOT the co-president, then to get to her claimed total, she was in diapers when her relevant "experience" began. Would a Democratic caucus member count the same first lady years as experience for Laura Bush if she were running for office? If not - then of course they should not count for Clinton either.

Hillary's "experience" is a shell game.

Posted by: Sam from Maine | March 3, 2008 5:44 AM

A vote for Hilly is a vote for A Clinton. A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush. Both are a continuation of the past. This Country will collectively Dumb Down if not moved on from the tempestuous times of the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush era. It is a shame and a disgrace to be so stubborn and locked in the same old people and their ways. Obama can't do any harm to this Country. He sure would be some kind of sadist to go through all of this just for such a stressful low paying job as the one of presidency. Voters must be smarter than a fifth grader and not fall for such sophomoric tactics as those of Hilly. She has had a Mental Breakdown right in front of the whole Country. How can her mood be trusted at 3 am? Which of her Sybil- personalities will answer the phone? TRUST, UNITY, HOPE, CHANGE, FUTURE, BETTERMENT and FAITH again in a Government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. Not of a Bush or a Clinton, by a Bush or a Clinton, for a Bush or a Clinton. The higher educated seems to be voting for Obama because they have weighed his value; unlike those who rely on the media to spoon feed them information. Hilly puts out a "fear" ad because there are those who will fall for the propaganda. Such a shameful way to get votes. Obama is a timely choice. He has hit a lot on the domestic woes of this Country. Hilly is hooked on a failed healthcare plan and parroting Obama's war position. She has NEVER said a word about what she will do specifically for women, not once! Why vote for a novelty? She should stop the maddness and let the Country move on.

Posted by: livefreeor | March 3, 2008 5:58 AM

Oh for the good old days. 1992-2000. Peace, surplus, low poverty, great economy,great stock market, great housing market, high wages, welfare reform, Global respect, many new police on street, low inflation, etc. etc. etc... Yes we know what we get from Hillary. What do we get with Obama. He said Reagan had the ideas, not Clintons. High national debt, Union busting, high inflation, high poverty, etc. etc. etc. Yep. We know what we will get with Obama.

Posted by: Chief | March 3, 2008 7:26 AM

Actually, Durbin's not wrong. As you said, they are both right. However, people overlook the fact that Hillary is running on her "experience", all of six years in the Senate (almost)? I guess that 8 years of being First Lady was grueling, too. To get to the point, she's made that the central focus, so of course, she will be taken to task for it. Not saying that Obama shouldn't be scrutinized as much, but it's true, he doesn't have the lengthy record, and is running on promises - but the thing is, he's more credible than she is. Look at his background: what he's done, who he is. He's genuine and she changes her personality to suit the moment, which is clear over the course of this campaign - which is why I'm not only anti-Republican, but now, I am also anti-Hillary. We don't need another divisive figure in the White House for a while, even if she is a thousand times smarter than the current creep.

Posted by: fbutler1 | March 3, 2008 9:15 AM

I'm amazed that the Clintons want glowing coverage about them after 11 straight losses. Any reporter with two eyes that is traveling with the Clinton campaign can see the complete and total lack of morale and enthusiasm in that campaign. Any other campaign would be struggling to get a single story written about them. The Clintons, despite all the derision they throw at the press, have these same journalists on their side breathing life into their nearly dead campaign.

Posted by: Judith Morris | March 3, 2008 11:14 AM


If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards


Posted by: Anonymous | March 3, 2008 1:07 PM

Soooo Fienstein says hillary's failure to read the national intelligence estimate debunking the WMD story peddled by Cheney and Bush, and then voting for the biggest foreign policy and millitary debacle since WWII wasn't bad jusdgement?

I used to think I would vote for Di-Fi for president - boy would THAT have been a mistake!


Posted by: onestring | March 3, 2008 3:08 PM

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think Clinton-style health care can be implmented in 2009 any more than it could be in 1993...if you think someone as phony and corporate as Hillary will actually fight for progressive causes instead of for her Wal-Mart and Tyson cronies...if you think America can afford to go back to fighting divisive 1990s political and cultural battles in the White House all over again .

I'd have preferred Edwards to Obama, but Barack is the best of what we have left.

Posted by: Vincent | March 3, 2008 3:50 PM

Coke head Obama can't wait to get into the white house and then invite his buddy Marion Barry and do the white lines and have a wonderful party.

Posted by: n. tahir | March 3, 2008 4:02 PM


Posted by: TAHIR | March 3, 2008 4:31 PM

If you want to see a good battle between Hillary & Barack, check out

Posted by: lchaas8 | March 3, 2008 9:00 PM

Ask yourself are the 99% of Americans better off under R Regan, H W Bush, Bill Clinton, or G W Bush? I rest my case!!!!!

Posted by: jacjmack | March 4, 2008 6:08 PM

I heard on a talk radio show about a interview that was held with some of Clinton's aides. They were asked to give examples of her foreign policy experience and for minutes, there was nothing but silence. They actually played the skit, but I can find nothing of it online. I think its amazing that since Hillary went and whined about the media being unfair to her, there has been a lot more scrutiny and negative tones given to Obama by the media. I did not hear her complaining when she was winning. Also, if she cannot handle scrutiny her, how will she handle the hatred for our country abroad? Complaining to those people will not do the trick. I think she uses dirty tactics just as Bush did. I find it despicable that she plays up the rumors of him being a Muslim? One, she is playing on people's fear and ignorance. Two, it shows just how much she will change the politics of today. SHE WON'T!! She is so concerned with winning the canidacy for herself, not for Democrats, otherwise she would play fair and morally instead of stooping as low as Bush did.

Posted by: Obama supporter | March 5, 2008 2:21 AM

Sorry fellow Dems but Hillary Clinton is corrupt. Not because of Bill. She has her own well earned independent list of scandals and corruption. I would love to have a "special friend" give me a 6 figure gift in the form of cattle futures trading profits. Wouldn't you? How about the Rose Law Firm billing records disappearing despite supoenas, and turning up in Hillary's possession. She was a primary active player in the Whitewater land deal while her husband was Governor. Bill and Hill got their money out just in time unlike ordinary folks who lost their shirts. I guess that's what's meant by her fan in the blog above, calling her a visionary. But all that's in the past, right? So in February, 2008, where did she and Bill come up with the 5 million to lend her campaign when they ran out of money? They won't say and unlike every other candidate including Obama and McCain, Bill and Hill won't release their joint tax return. Why not, my friends? Who are the secret contributors to Bill's library and what are they getting in return if Hillary is elected? Are they the same ones who gave the 5 million to save the campaign. Which foreign contributors to the library get what? Bill gave Mark Rich his pardon for library cash. What does Hill give for the 5 million dollar source, and to the library contribtors? The Clintons don't believe in transparancy. Transparancy is the key to restoring clean government, even for visionaries. I am a lifelong democrat, but there is a strong reason why Hillary's negatives have been stuck at 49% for years, and you are drinking too much Kool Aid if you think its just because the right wing doesn't like her.

Posted by: RCFillmore | March 6, 2008 10:05 PM

Things which Obama could say or ask if he were mean (or more like HRC):
-Putting Clintons in white house is really a "roll of dice" because we really don't know what Bill would again do with all the free time he has now. (he could be real mean and say do we want to free willie again!)
-Since HRC is so concerned about Rezko, what was Bill doing promoting thugs and dictators in former Soviet republic Kazakstan, who just happened to contribute or make his contributors from Uranium mining extremely wealthy. Shall we dare mention other alleged scandals?
-Since HRC is so concerned about duplicity of Obama team on NAFTA, does she mind explaining why she was making a fuss about Dubai Port deals in public while Husband Bill was making money advising UAE on ho to get it?
-Does she really think her experience equates with those of Mc Cain on Foreign policy. Perhaps it will make her look equally macho and strong to join in the chorus "Bomb Bomb Bomb ...Iran". Is bombing a country that Hillarious?
-And then there was the 3 am call. Do I really want someone who has always taken the politically expedient path to answer any critical call not only at 3:00 am but neither at 3:00 pm?
He could really go on and on and on ...............pretty much like her spin machine.

My appologies to HRC supporters. I know there are a lot of decent ones. But your candidate stabbed in the back of a fellow Democrat, a gentleman, and someone who inspires millions to join the party, to service. But I can't take it lying down. It may not count for much, but she will not get my vote if she tricks her way to the nomination.

Posted by: BB | March 7, 2008 4:03 AM

Fear-mongering is something that is generally best left until the general election, like in the 2000 election. Fear can only take a campaign so far before exhaustion sets in.
-Trevor Wynne

Posted by: Trevor Wynne | March 7, 2008 10:13 AM

psoY2m r u crazzy? I told u! I can't read!

Posted by: zxevil156 | March 8, 2008 6:47 AM

6vKL5X r u crazzy? I told u! I can't read!

Posted by: zxevil157 | March 8, 2008 3:06 PM

OgYYd4 [url=]rupornodor[/url], rupornodor

Posted by: zxevil158 | March 9, 2008 5:15 AM

The fence sitters like Richardson should be weighing in when it can make a difference, not holding back to jump on the bandwagon. This divisiveness is the last thing we need. And if anyone is going to offer anyone the vice-presidency to have this thing done with, it should be the first place runner offering it to number two and not the other way around.

Posted by: Sara B. | March 9, 2008 1:29 PM

The questions about the Obama-Rezko situation have not been answered. Not at all. Obama has answered some questions, but has not really allowed follow-up quesitons and has consistently refused to open the real estate records or answer the fund-raising questions. He says he will -- happily, happily, he says. Then he doesn't do so. Do some online research, particularly in the Chicago newspapers.

And Obama is crazy if he thinks he can keep ducking it, b/c he can't. If he wins the nomination, McCain will make hay out of this issue, for sure. Obama will not be able to keep stonewalling, it WILL come out. It would be so much better for him to take the questions now.

Posted by: Beth - Illinois | March 9, 2008 2:41 PM

the little girl in the ad turns out to be grown up now. She is an Obama precinct captain. Don't you just love it when Hillary shoots herself in the foot.I wonder why Hillary won't release her and Bill's income tax returns for the years 2000-2007? Is she afraid of exposing someone who gave them money for pardons?Is she afraid of exposing someone who gave Bill money to influence legislation she introduced?Did they receive money from the mobsters in Ukraine and Kazakhstan? She could be cleared if she just released them. Let's see them. What's she afraid of. She will have to release them by the general election. why not do it now, if there's nothing to hide?

Posted by: majorteddy | March 9, 2008 6:13 PM

Honestly, I'd rather Obama answer the phone if my security is at stake. The Clinton's had their eight years, and didn't do much. I prefer someone who at least BELIEVES that change is possible. Hillary is totally bought in to "Business as usual" in Washington, and I think very little would change with her in office.

Posted by: post fan | March 9, 2008 6:32 PM

Di Fi, please! As if this egregious woman would have a clue what to do if she were president and the red phone rang at 3:00 A.M.

She would be about as prepared as Laura Bush or Mamie Eisenhower.

Posted by: Pete | March 9, 2008 6:45 PM

No, Jacksmith, he is the greatest impeached, disbarred president in American history.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 6:54 PM

Feinstein is speaking from a Clinton supporter's view. More than 50% of the population are female. All our grandmothers, mothers, wives and daughters are female. There is no doubt that they do suffer from historical religious and cultural stereotyping of the female, but that pales in comparison to racial discrimination suffered routinely by minorities (20%, 5%, 1% , etc. of the population) especially from some sections of the American society. Feinstein's complaint that Clinton faces more daunting bias than Obama simply reminds me of how close Clinton has been to people like Feinstein and Lieberman.

Posted by: KT11 | March 9, 2008 9:00 PM

Saturday NIGHT LIVE did a wonderful political satire on OBAMA answering the phone at 3AM. TAKE A LOOK.

Posted by: MAX | March 9, 2008 9:07 PM

She helped to bring Peace to Ireland? Untruth (euphemism)

Senator Hillary Clinton - Ireland. . . . "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years.

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

See Link:

Posted by: Peace | March 11, 2008 12:43 PM

I would personally like to see a woman in office, but NOT Hillary Clinton. She is not to be trusted and would America a terrible country to live in. If she wins, I am moving to Europe.

Posted by: Chris | March 11, 2008 5:12 PM

Hillary is so "yesterday". She brings nothing new to the equation. The Clinton's 8 years in office were filled with scandal and mischief. I have no reason to believe anything in Washington would change if she got the nomination.

Since when did all the Clinton supporters become so bitter and nasty? POOOOOR Hillary. Can't get an even break. Her biggest qualification is that her husband got a BJ. In return for overlooking this, we made her a US Senator, and now she wants to be president! What a crock!

Posted by: observer | March 16, 2008 8:21 PM

mkhlHF Cool, bro!
[url=]clock screensaver[/url],
clock screensaver

Posted by: zxevil165 | March 20, 2008 11:10 AM

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America ... for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme. - Pastor Jeremiah Wright (April 2003)

I can no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. - Senator Obama (March 2008)

My question is...why did it take Senator Obama 5 years to address this issue? Why now? Why, as he running for President, is he still affiliated with this type of extremism? The same extremism that is the foundation for the terrorism we are fighting today. If he can't disown this extremism, why are Americans still supporting him? The next quote is from a radio broadcast 19 Mar 2008...

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way - Senator Obama

A supposed Presidential hopeful slamming whites and his own grandmother to the nation he wants to run. Please, somebody explain this to me...

Here are some more quotes...

...I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites... - Senator Obama's Book "Dreams From My Father" page xv

Trinity [Church] embodies the black community in its entirety - Senator Obama

My Rant...The Democrats will put our country in a downward spiral, just as Bill Clinton did during his term. More importantly they will open our country to terrorism, they will send the wrong message to the whole world and more importantly to them...they plan to slap the almost 4000 men and women that have died in Iraq by pulling out of Iraq and letting that country go to Iran, Al Qaeda and Muslim extremists. Bill Clinton and the democrats are to blame for the down sizing of our military and our intelligence community that led to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. President Bush didn't have time to fix these issues...he only had time to react. President Bush also asked for the parties to unite...take a look today...there isn't any unity on the hill. The democrats DO NOT GET IT and THEY NEVER WILL. The democrats were the first to jump on the issue of troops not having the proper equipment to fight a war, our troops were lacking proper armament and personal protection...who did they point the finger at...President Bush. President Bush had nothing to do with it. Bill Clinton is to blame...and Americans support another Clinton!! Amazing! On the flip side of the coin, we have never fought a war like we are fighting today and just as we did during all previous wars...we adapted. Unfortunately, lives are lost before weaknesses are realized. This is the nature of war...been there, done that. Still, the democrats point at the Republicans.

What is that saying, "That birds of a feather will flock together". The Clintons are married and are still married. Bill Clinton lied to our faces when he stated he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I remember that broadcast, while he pointed his finger, pounded on the podium all while squinting his eyes at the camera. He was scalding the American people for questioning his behavior (behavior unbecoming an American President). By the way, questioning our elected leaders is not only a duty and but a responsibility of an American citizen. HE WAS LYING RIGHT TO OUR FACES!! So what makes people who support the Clintons think that Hillary will not lie to our faces also? "Birds of a feather will flock together". Another quote...

Our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House - Mrs. Obama

My vote is for Mrs. Obama!! LOL, just kidding...see below.

If anyone has had their patriotism tested, it has been Senator John McCain. During his 23rd bombing mission on October 26, 1967, a missile struck his plane and forced him to eject, knocking him unconscious and breaking both his arms and his leg. He was then taken as a prisoner of war into the now infamous "Hanoi Hilton," where he was denied necessary medical treatment and often beaten by the North Vietnamese. He spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was released in accordance with the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, Senator McCain continued his service by regaining his naval flight status. He was a POW for 5 ½ years! His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Senator McCain is a loyal and faithful patriot of our country. He came home to us honorably in 1973 and for that and for the love of his country, he has earned my vote as the next President of the United States. No other candidate compares.

Posted by: Chris | March 20, 2008 10:00 PM

When the phone rings at 3:00am in the White House, you can bet it's for Bill and not Hillary.

Posted by: Bigbear | March 22, 2008 12:44 AM

I was watching "This Week" this morning which was talking about Hillary's new "3 a.m." ad about the economy and I kept thinking about 3 a.m. and why they picked that hour. Well, I realized that 3 a.m. is a very telling hour, it is known historically as "The Witching Hour".

It has a historical significance rooted in Paganism. See Wikipedia: in which Wikipedia says: "In European folklore, the witching hour is the time when supernatural creatures such as witches, demons and ghosts are thought to be at their most powerful, and black magic at its most effective. This hour is typically midnight, and the term may now be used to refer to midnight, or any late hour, even without having the associated superstitious beliefs. The term "witching hour" can also refer to the period from midnight to 3 a.m."

For those familiar with the film, based on a true story, "The Exorcism of Emily Rose", you know that 3 a.m. is also significant in terms of Christian belief that 3 a.m. is the reverse hour of 3 p.m. when Christ died - or when thought by some that demons have the most power, or maybe this is just Hollywood!?

I think this is interesting because symbols are used in everyday persuasion, subconsciously, or not, to communicate underlying ideas to people, especially in advertising. It just makes me wonder, is the Clinton campaign doing this deliberately or by accident? Are they trying to subliminally target the Christian right with this campaign of Hillary as President always waking up at 3 a.m. to combat evil in the world?

Posted by: ametroguy | April 6, 2008 3:50 PM

Wow,super site here! " target="_top">forex trading system

Posted by: Ethan owvsd | April 10, 2008 5:01 AM

xivzl uvhg kzoae swurvzlmt orym ikoqtra rhjxzwfq

Posted by: nkyofm ywavsix | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM

xivzl uvhg kzoae swurvzlmt orym ikoqtra rhjxzwfq

Posted by: nkyofm ywavsix | April 16, 2008 9:21 AM

ohjbms rojfy vsnale etijfqa cruneih mfvh gfvzmuwdk

Posted by: rqaplhcbk juoed | April 16, 2008 9:22 AM

uzlkbxq wplayu czhk qmcblo effects propecia side testimonials

Posted by: effects propecia side testimonials | May 11, 2008 7:51 PM

uzlkbxq wplayu czhk qmcblo effects propecia side testimonials

Posted by: effects propecia side testimonials | May 11, 2008 7:51 PM

rohjbd mhouxfd hjsor ween off prozac

Posted by: ween off prozac | August 15, 2008 5:53 PM

bcylghz qnditke avlqxs vjraq benefit of ashwagandha herb

Posted by: benefit of ashwagandha herb | August 15, 2008 8:14 PM

rxgftq tfwh pjzu rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa

Posted by: rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa | August 16, 2008 12:50 AM

rxgftq tfwh pjzu rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa

Posted by: rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa | August 16, 2008 12:51 AM

Posted by: lexapro broccoli | August 16, 2008 2:29 AM

uijkz agyf becj qbhed diabetes lawsuit seroquel

Posted by: diabetes lawsuit seroquel | August 16, 2008 3:13 AM

uijkz agyf becj qbhed diabetes lawsuit seroquel

Posted by: diabetes lawsuit seroquel | August 16, 2008 3:13 AM

qwdasfb kbje changing from zoloft to cymbalta

Posted by: changing from zoloft to cymbalta | August 16, 2008 3:19 AM

Posted by: kamagra gel uk | August 16, 2008 4:32 PM

tpvk rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa

Posted by: rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa | August 16, 2008 8:51 PM

uwgjkv vtysqp hoezw crying paxil health anxiety

Posted by: crying paxil health anxiety | August 16, 2008 9:25 PM

uwgjkv vtysqp hoezw crying paxil health anxiety

Posted by: crying paxil health anxiety | August 16, 2008 9:25 PM

Posted by: elavil for bulimia | August 17, 2008 12:16 AM

akdforx rehml xrmvu kjmpzqa lithium and paxil with methodone

Posted by: lithium and paxil with methodone | August 17, 2008 9:55 AM

zbtpj exwm pldgjec yopr cymbalta men

Posted by: cymbalta men | August 17, 2008 2:49 PM

Posted by: hairlosshelp arvind | August 17, 2008 7:29 PM

olkhpn rbidqtp weight gain with lexapro

Posted by: weight gain with lexapro | August 20, 2008 11:56 PM

Posted by: lexapro vs celexa efficacy | August 21, 2008 12:01 AM

kuefzjc yxuqs dzoi dvilzbp lexapro and marijuana

Posted by: lexapro and marijuana | August 21, 2008 12:27 AM

ovhmg whxsif ejzsqk hci paroxetine paxil

Posted by: hci paroxetine paxil | August 21, 2008 12:27 AM

Posted by: smoking stop zyban | August 21, 2008 2:17 AM

frto lqdny adverse reaction to generic paxil

Posted by: adverse reaction to generic paxil | August 21, 2008 3:23 AM

Posted by: seroquel to treat bipolar | August 21, 2008 3:45 AM

orsyt mknrt raxou qxphe elavil for mav

Posted by: elavil for mav | August 21, 2008 3:50 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company