Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Ups the Ante in Wisconsin

UPDATE 5:20 p.m. ET: Barack Obama's campaign is showing it will not stand down in the increasingly vituperative ad war with Hillary Rodham Clinton ahead of Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday.

Obama's campaign is now on the Badger State airwaves with an ad that seeks to rebut charges about Obama's record on Social Security and health care made in Clinton's latest spot.

Here's the ad:

The key lines? "After 18 debates with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama's ducking debates?" asks a narrator quizzically. "It's the same, old politics."

As expected, Obama is using Clinton's contrast ads to reinforce the fundamental message of his campaign: The way in which politics has been conducted ill serves the American public, but his new politics of hope can change things.

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is standing firmly behind its own ads in Wisconsin. "This ad accurately notes that Senator Obama chose to run a false attack ad in Wisconsin rather than have a one-on-one debate with Senator Clinton," said Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff.

ORIGINAL POST FROM EARLY SATURDAY: On Thursday we wondered whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would take a more confrontational -- some might even say negative -- tone in the runup to elections in Wisconsin next week and in Ohio and Texas on March 4.

Less than 24 hours later, the Clinton campaign is now on television in Wisconsin with an ad that seems to suggest she is headed in that direction.

Here's the ad:

Unlike the first semi-contrast ad Clinton had been running in the state, this new spot expands the contrast between the two candidates far beyond Obama's unwillingness to agree to a debate against the New York Senator in the state.

It hits Obama for "hiding behind false attack ads" -- a classic contrast ad tactic of "he started it" -- before asserting that Obama has a health care plan that would leave 15 million people uncovered, that he "voted to pass billions in Bush giveaways to the oil companies" and that he has expressed an openness to raising the retirement age and cutting benefits to solve the Social Security shortfall.

The tag line: "Why won't Barack Obama debate these differences," asks a narrator as the words appear on screen. "Wisconsin deserves better."

The Obama campaign quickly responded to the new Clinton commercial, holding a conference call with Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) on Friday in which he denounced the ads as "false and negative." Doyle added that it was ridiculous for Clinton to charge that Obama was somehow hiding something from Wisconsin voters since the New York senator had yet to set foot in the state in advance of Tuesday's primary. "[Obama] has been here day after day in community after community," said Doyle.

Even as this new Clinton ad hit the airwaves, however, her campaign launched another purely positive spot that bashes President George W. Bush and touts the New York senator as a fighter for the middle class.

Here's that ad:

The fact that the Clinton campaign is "doubletracking" their advertising in Wisconsin reveals a few things. First of all, the campaign's financial situation has to have improved considerably since two different flights of ads -- even in a state like Wisconsin -- is a costly endeavor. Second, it's clear that the Clinton campaign recognizes that while it must try to take the bark (or the halo -- choose your symbol) of off Obama, they must also find a way to balance that more negative message with a positive storyline about her. Third, it shows the Clinton campaign is investing serious resources in Wisconsin -- believing that a win (or at least a narrow loss) is possible.

The question before Clinton is whether she will be able to financially keep up this sort of dual messaging on television in far more expensive states like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. And, if not, which track does she choose? The positive? The contrast/negative? Or something sort of hybrid?

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 16, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On Superdelegates and Momentum
Next: Obama Pays a Visit to John Edwards

Comments

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

Posted by: odnj spwirbfog | April 16, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

Posted by: odnj spwirbfog | April 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

Posted by: odnj spwirbfog | April 16, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

Posted by: odnj spwirbfog | April 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I've done the math.

Clinton can have Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia all by 6% margins.

Obama can have Wisconsin, Hawaii, North Carolina, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Puerto Rico all by 6% (the same) margins.

Obama will still be up in delegates by 100+. Do the math. All of the delegate counts are at realclearpolitics.com.

Based on polls and the geographical results we've seen, I think the states I've given both of them are more than fair, especially considering that Obama will win North Carolina, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oregon and Puerto Rico by much, much larger margins than 6%, and now it's looking (by the polls) that Obama will do better in Texas than we originally thought.

But I wanted to give them small margins to keep it competitive. For Hillary to win this nomination battle, she would literally have to convince the super delegates to overturn the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, which simply won't happen. Good night Hillary.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I have to laugh when I read about claims that the press is giving too much coverage to Senator Obama. If you combine Hillary and Bill Clinton's press coverage, and I mean the round-table discussions discussing mainly Bubba's attacks and whether they hurt/help his wife... You could probably say Hillary's campaign is probably getting more than double the coverage.

Stooping to calling Obama's speeches plagiarism is the latest pathetic tactic in trying to paint a big question mark in front of Obama because they have no other ideas. Deval Patrick is a personal friend of Obama's and they routinely discuss issues and politics. Discrediting someone for their ability to speak well, motivate, and enlighten voters is childish.

Hillary is trying to speak like an old-time politician, promising millions of new jobs when in her heart she knows she can't hire millions of interns to keep Bill busy. Yeah, that's a shot. But seriously, she wants to garnish our wages to make sure that even illegals are covered?

I would really like to see Obama win the majority of the delegates in these upcoming elections and see if Hillary has the decency to admit that she is stepping down in the name of party unity. Lets face it...the majority of voters who have cast ballots for a democrat HAVE voted for Obama and that means the super delegates should follow the lead of the people.

Posted by: drgrafix | February 19, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Hardly vituperative! Only a second grader would say so! What is vituperative is your and the rest of the MSNBC crowd coverage. She is still winning Democrat vote after Democrat vote. Sure she lost those red states That will stay red in the general election . She lost a close one in CT even after months of biases B**Sh** you and the MSNBC power house of GE has thrown at her with not a question of THE MESSIAH. Not once have you aired any reporting of Rezko or the Messiahs dealings with Exelon. Never a question where he got all his money to start his campaign. Not to mention where did a community organizer get the money to buy his house. Never a question as to who he actually brought together? Who did he reach out to! What people of differing ideas did he "BRING TOGETHER". What is he talking about "CHANGE" CHANGE WHAT? I've never heard him say what he is actually going to change!

Posted by: ricksramblings | February 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Stop INSPIRATION & HOPE.... Support DENIGRATION & DESPAIR. GO CLINTON '08

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 18, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm still calling for Hillary winning in Wisc. By a nose.
But then a big loss in Texas. Much bigger nose.
Happy President's Day!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 18, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I used to think that a candidate like Barack Obama was too good to be true, and now I know I am right. I also know that he has become big-headed since getting Oprah's and the Kennedys' endorsements. He has changed and not the same. He already sounds like the very same politicians he so critizes. He is riding high because of all the free media coverage he has received. The news media pundits have made Obama the "Golden Boy", "The Darling" of most pundits. If he had not gotten Oprah to get him started where would he be now?

I can't help but think how Obama is going to repay Oprah all she has done for him.
Since she has done it and has it all, what else is there? An Ambassadorship perhaps?
What will Obama have to do for Ted, or is Ted Kennedy going to be pulling the strings in helping Obama run the country? Ted Kennedy does not do anything without calling in the favors later on the road. Ask anybody in Washington, D.C.

My vote is now going to go to Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: bocona | February 18, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons will stop at nothing, there devisiveness brings out the people underline prejudice; Lou Dobb on CNN never have anything good to say about Obama; but, always looking to expose his prejudice; it is evident and he should be aware that people listening to him are intelligent and can "understand" his co-word "rheteric" against all minorities that the Clintons are skillful in trying to explot for polictical purposes.. The afro-american community became very much so aware in this campaign, I hope the hispanic community become aware soon. Brown, Black & White are erasing the divide and the people who profit off that devide are angry.
I would prefer voting for McCain rather than for Hillary. At least with McCain you know what you are getting. And, I think all Afro-americans should do the same, the democratic party have taken the afro-american votes for granted for years; and, now when they are voting for a democrat that is of color they use the racial divide "Afro- voting for Afro. It is an insult. Afro-americans will always vote for who they think can best run this country. That is why they are voting for Obama, not the spouse of a President that used the highest office in the land for his sexual appetite and his wife maintained only so that she could become a senator and run for president. Once a president abuse that office as he did, the doors should never re-open for a second chance.
Vote Obama08 or relectantly, McCain

Posted by: bdicke1519 | February 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The Clintons will stop at nothing, there devisiveness brings out the people underline prejudice; Lou Dobb on CNN never have anything good to say about Obama; but, always looking to expose his prejudice; it is evident and he should be aware that people listening to him are intelligent and can "understand" his co-word "rheteric" against all minorities that the Clintons are skillful in trying to explot for polictical purposes.. The afro-american community became very much so aware in this campaign, I hope the hispanic community become aware soon. Brown, Black & White are erasing the divide and the people who profit off that devide are angry.


Thinker February 18th, 2008 7:51 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I would prefer voting for McCain rather than for Hillary. At least with McCain you know what you are getting. And, I think all Afro-americans should do the same, the democratic party have taken the afro-american votes for granted for years; and, now when they are voting for a democrat that is of color they use the racial divide "Afro- voting for Afro. It is an insult. Afro-americans will always vote for who they think can best run this country. That is why they are voting for Obama, not the spouse of a President that used the highest office in the land for his sexual appetite and his wife maintained only so that she could become a senator and run for president. Once a president abuse that office as he did, the doors should never re-open for a second chance.
Vote Obama08 or relectantly, McCain

Posted by: bdicke1519 | February 18, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wins Wisconsin or even comes close, Obama looses his mo. Remember he has been campaigning there for weeks as part of his small state strategy. If Hillary can do decent in Wisconsin, she will get the momentum to knock out Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It is all about expectations. The media has been predicting for weeks a big blow-out for Obama in Wisconsin. Remember prediction of unbroken string of 10 winning states for Obama? Wisconsin is perfect for Obama win, and Hillary should do decent if she wants to show that she can fight back, when on a loosing streak. Sometimes, a small state can give a big boost to the candidate, just as in Iowa and SC for Obama and New Hampshire for Hillary. Let us see what happens in Wisconsin.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 18, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

If you want to search sth online, you can google it.
If you want copy&paste sth, you can obama it.

Thanks for obamaing the above on internet.

Posted by: hgogo | February 18, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I hope Clinton does win Wisconsin and does win the nomination and does win the presidency so that wpost4112 has to get her head examined and finally learns what rationalization and projection mean to head shrinkers. I am also from Wisconsin and most of my white working class family still live there. They like Obama a lot but they like Hillary more. They do not decide anything on the color of skin but are devoted to the quality of work and the quality of character. They honestly don't know much about Obama but they do know Clinton has been fighting for working class people her entire life. The ugly remarks about Wisconsin I think reflect of the ugly reflection some people see in a mirror and then need to run out and find a scapegoat.

Posted by: michaelptar | February 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

What? Not enough Moonies in Wisconsin for Obama to put under his spell? Oh well, I hear there's plenty of Kool-Aid drinkers in Hawaii.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I guess you are for Obama. You forget to say it is the same old thing with Obama, too, except for that sign in front.

It appears Obama leads people to believe he voted against the war. He entered the US Senate in 2005 almost two years after the war started. Since then, his votes have tended to keep the same old status quo for the war. He's not 42 as the papers said, he is closer to 50, definitely middle aged.

I doubt Obama is responsible for these discrepancies. I believe it is the press.

Posted by: katherinekcarr | February 18, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

It sounds like you are for Obama. When you say the same old thing, you forget to mention Obama, too. I don't see anything different except that sign.

Obama makes claims that he voted against the war, but I don't see it in his votes. In fact, he wasn't in the Senate until 2005, almost 2 years after the war started.

Posted by: katherinekcarr | February 18, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

To the poster who wrote "Barack is financed by us, the little people." Which one of the little people shelled out a milion bucks and bought Obama's front yard in Chicago? Or did they all chip in to help him out? I am sick to death of the Saint-Barack-vs-the-Evil-Clintons narrative. A truly colorblind society is one where media and voters alike subject candidates of all races to the same level of scrutiny. That has not remotely happened with Saint Barack

Posted by: davidscott1 | February 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

"Negativity" gets a bad rap. Someone is going to win, and there is nothing wrong with noting why it should not be your opponent.

Posted by: davidscott1 | February 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

These Wisconsin posts are hysterical = Germans, cheese, Nazis, blacks, unity, blah blah blah.

So you all seem to think that to vote for Clinton means you have no heart.

And to vote for Obama means you have no brain.

Count me amongst the heartless then.

Posted by: hyperlexis | February 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments about WI being mostly German, largely Catholic, non-diverse...and therefor will not vote for Obama are hyserical!! Take a look at what happened in Iowa, folks. In my part of the state, we're mostly white, German and Catholic...And we voted for Obama!! Hillary came in third. 'nuff said!

Posted by: PrairieRobin | February 18, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan voters(the people)did not break a rule the big wigs in the democratic party of these states and thier state legislature changed the date.Have they been punished the state democratic big wigs no they havent the people have been.The Dnc broke the peoples constitutional right to vote,but hey the constitution isnt as important as a political parties rules are.I wonder how those people spouting rules will feel when its there turn?

Posted by: girlinvt | February 18, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan voters(the people)did not break a rule the big wigs in the democratic party of these states and thier state legislature changed the date.Have they been punished the state democratic big wigs no they havent the people have been.The Dnc broke the peoples constitutional right to vote,but hey the constitution isnt as important as a political parties rules are.I wonder how those people spouting rules will feel when its there turn?

Posted by: girlinvt | February 18, 2008 4:25 AM | Report abuse

Wisconsin produced both Joseph McCarthy and fighting Bob La Follette. In 1972 the democratic primary was divided p between George McGovern, Hubert Umphrey and George Wallace!

Anything can happen on Tuesday.

Posted by: jadkisson1 | February 18, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I am very interested in the bloggers' debate about potential racism in Wisconsin. I haven't campaigned there since 1972 (for McGovern) so I do not have an up to date take. However, I do remember the campaign then and it was dominated by three personalities: Humphrey (almost a local from neighboring Minnesota; McGovern (the upset winner); and George Wallace! I also remember a very active and informed African-American community in the inner city of Milwaukee which (in a primary) will give Obama a 7-10% cushion (and some bonus delegates) if previous states are any indicator.

If there is any continuity from so many decades ago, or from Wisconsin history in general, it would not surprise me if "anything" happened there on Tuesday. This is a state more than any other in the country that goes its own way--and in every direction. Its history includes producing both Joseph McCarthy and fighting Bob La Follette.

Go figure!

Posted by: jadkisson1 | February 18, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I am very interested in the bloggers' debate about potential racism in Wisconsin. I haven't campaigned there since 1972 (for McGovern) so I do not have an up to date take. However, I do remember the campaign then and it was dominated by three personalities: Humphrey (almost a local from neighboring Minnesota; McGovern (the upset winner); and George Wallace! I also remember a very active and informed African-American community in the inner city of Milwaukee which (in a primary) will give Obama a 7-10% cushion (and some bonus delegates) if previous states are any indicator.

If there is any continuity from so many decades ago, or from Wisconsin history in general, it would not surprise me if "anything" happened there on Tuesday. This is a state more than any other in the country that goes its own way--and in every direction. Its history includes producing both Joseph McCarthy and fighting Bob La Follette.

Go figure!

Posted by: jadkisson1 | February 18, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

While I truly enjoy reading a majority of the comments here (well thought out, educated, factual, etc.), and am learning more from them myself (and I have been following this election for a LONG time),
I am seriously distressed by the ignorance of some who, obviously, have not done ANY research on the candidates.

svreader, barajo, alan4 - before you make any more comments, DO MORE RESEARCH PLEASE!!! Your lack of information on your candidates is really showing!

Posted by: ndolan622 | February 17, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

jsindc ... Thank-you!!!

I was a Obama supporter until I listened to the debates. The difference in answers is what swayed me to Hilary. She knows how to handle these tuff situations. For 8 years I can tell she wasn't just the "little First Lady". She observed and I am sure had a lot to say to good ole Bill. I can tell she is trying to please everyone, and that just isn't working. She should get smart and utilize the Barack strategy "don't tell them anything of substance, it will be used against you"!

I also agree that we need to rally around our Democratic candidates and prepare them for the "Dirty Politics" that the Republicans play. I have already started hearing the Republican vs Democrat slings. Presidential races are always brutal, they are like war, and our candidates need to learn to fight. I don't think playing nice will win the general election.

Posted by: Pumpkin31 | February 17, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

With all of the negative blitz being flung by the Clinton campaign in Wisconsin (look out Texas, Ohio, & Pennsylvania), I think Democratic voters ought to ask themselves one fundamental question: Why does the Republican Party want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee?

Answer: No other candidate will arouse the passion and flame the willingness to put aside political differences than Sen. Clinton. Clinton will be THE CANDIDATE who UNIFIES the REPUBLICAN PARTY, a group of very disspirited individuals who have noting to cheer about other than George W. Bush re-packaged in the body of a 72 year old aging white guy from Arizona.

But Democrats, the issue goes beyond this. We have seen the result of essentially a 50-50 split in the Senate (considering where Lieberman is going next) and the most threadbare of majorities in the House. The result: GRIDLOCK. No one party can advance their agenda, and if something good emerges, the other side throws kerosene onto the fire or engages in procedural slow-walking of legislation. In this sense, Obama is absolutely correct - there has got to be a fundamental shift in the way things are done or worked in Washington DC. Otherwise, the American public will lose confidence in their government.

I can't imagine McCain winning, but if Sen. Clinton is the Democratic party's candidate and if she advances to the White House, what might be the outcome in the House and Senate races in play in 2008? I suspect the Republicans will throw every resource into the fray to retain every seat they've got, and look to snipe off a few others where Democratic candidate(s) are weak. President Clinton will not be able to utilize her "toughbness" and that mystical "experience" garnered from Clinton '42. It will be UGLY and GRIDLOCK will be the kindest word Americans will use when describing the elected leaders.

Maybe all of those "Super Delegates" will see through the potential prattfalls which will visit upon them under Clinton '44. Simply put, do they want to get re-elected or be swept out of office like Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay excised Dem's?

Posted by: AngryAmerican | February 17, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

For many years now I have been concerned with the news media not accepting the responsibility to be fair arbitrators of information. Ratings and entertainment are more important than educating the electorate. I now feel manipulated so the press can have a horse race. Any objective analysis of political news coverage will show the so called "free press" is stumping for Obama. Pay particular attention to the graphics during election coverage emphasizing Obama wins. The legitimate issue of qualification and competence to be POTUS is being ignored and discouraged. Chris Matthews (Feb.9) had a guest, who happens to be black, say he questions Obama as a "viable and serious" candidate; they could not get his face off the screen fast enough, the same for the other guy who try to say it was silly to believe polls today can tell what will happen in November. My question is do you think this will continue through November? Will the news machine try to salvage credibility?
I think once Hillary is disposed of the issue of qualification, competence and experience will result in another republican victory.
Many democrats do not have the excuse of youth in believing polls suggesting Obama has the better chance. We should all know the most pressing concern come November will be who is best qualified to be commander in chief at a time of war and McCain is already staking claim to that moniker.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 17, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is afraid of the debate becuase it will reveal his lack of grasp of complex issues facing America. During the first debate Brian Williams asked Obama:" Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

Obama: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.
_____________________________________________________

Senator Clinton's answer on the other hand was right on:

Clinton: Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.
I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Posted by: jsindc | February 17, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

It is time that the American press and the American people seriously look at Obama and see that he has no substance in his run for for President except using the word Change (?). Is there anyone knows what change he is really talking about. Maybe we should be asking Obama where's the beef? Give us something concrete and stop being so vague. Change to what is what I keep thinking Is he running a snow job on us or what?

Posted by: images2u | February 17, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"Dumbing of America."

Do read it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Barack is an entirely a different political animal than Bush or Clinton.

He has integrity.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 05:33 PM

__________________________________

You're entitled to your opinion, but Obama is using the same ploy Bush used, no matter how you try to run away from it. "Honor and intergrity to the White House". "Uniter, not a divider". "Washington outsider".

Obama has stolen a page from MLK, a page from JKF, a page from Bill Clinton, and a page from George W Bush.

Remember when Bush was going to clean up Washington DC and to bridge the partisan divide? And just like Obama, the media bought the hype and loved him in 2000.

Bush admitted he was drunk until 40. Obama admits he used drugs in his youth.
They both have wonderful, loving marriages. Family guys all the way.

Obama is not Bush, but his campaign absolutely does resemble Bush's campaign circa 2000.

Obama IS a politician, and knows what a wining campaign looks like.

Obama is a blank slate on the national scene(like Bush was in 2000) compared to Clinton or McCain (who've been on the national scene for decades). So he can sell hope----just as Bush sold his wares in 2000.

Ignore the comparison at America's peril. Americans are definitely a hopeful bunch. Even when they keep repeating the same mistakes.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 17, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"If he didn't have charisma and wasn't black there wouldn't BE a campaign, grassroots, top heavy or whatever. And I guarantee we wouldn't be having this discussion right now..."


Again, read "The Dumbing of America."

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

That doesn't explain his brilliant and decided victory in Iowa. Everyone agrees he has run a brilliant campaign compared to Hillary. And it has little to do with charisma and everything to do with grassroots organization.


If he didn't have charisma and wasn't black there wouldn't BE a campaign, grassroots, top heavy or whatever. And I guarantee we wouldn't be having this discussion right now...

Posted by: elayman | February 17, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"These are two of the obvious explanations how anyone looks "brilliant" under extremely favorable conditions. "


That doesn't explain his brilliant and decided victory in Iowa. Everyone agrees he has run a brilliant campaign compared to Hillary. And it has little to do with charisma and everything to do with grassroots organization.

Facts are facts.

Except in Hillaryland, of course.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Not only has Barack had a completely positive campaign, he did it brilliantly without drama, organizing an extensive grassroots organization in every state.


1. Obama plays very well to crowds which is a built in advantage to capturing young actvists. If you've seen any of them after attending one of these rallies, many will basically admit to doing ANYTHING for him -- which is crucial to organizing Caucus states but of limited importance to day to day governing.

2. He has had the media cheerleading him the whole way and so far has not been held to the fire on any difficult questions or questionable past judgements and associations.

These are two of the obvious explanations how anyone looks "brilliant" under extremely favorable conditions. It goes without saying, though, the higher the rise, the further the fall. It's inevitable and the only question is before or after his fate has been sealed.

Posted by: elayman | February 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Actual living, breathing Wisconsinite here.
I was at the Madison rally. There were probably closer to 20,000 people there. The Kohl Center holds 17,000+ people which was filled, including half the actual floor AND there was an overflow room with 2,000 people.

Sure, Madison will probably go for Obama. This "Milwaukee" you speak of. Oh sure, there are incredibly conservative people in suburban Milwaukee, after all they kept electing that neanderthal Sensenbrenner. Those are Republicans, I wouldn't expect them to vote for anyone but McCain.

As for the people up north, sure older generations and probably some younger people are racist, sexist, and antisemitic. But please don't assume the entire state is filled with quasi-Nazi Klansmen. I grew up in the conservative north and in the last election Democrats managed to make inroads in the state.

If the good, lily white people of Iowa can vote for Barack Obama, I'm pretty sure the people Wisconsin can too.

Posted by: kirstin | February 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

You first list Obama's accomplishments since he's been in the US Senate.

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Neither Obama or Clinton have been executives, until now. Running their respective campaigns is the largest undertaking either has been involved with in their lifetime. OK, let's look at things objectively.....Clinton has replaced her campaign manager and other staff/surrogates and is lagging far behind in fundraising, smart media buys and when to spend the money (she even had to lend her campaign 5 million dollars).

Obama's campaign has been smart and effective; winning more states, delegates and the popular vote thus far...his campaign is organized and ready to promote his message in all the remaining contests. He continues to raise more money and has not had to fire a campaign manager or top staffers; his message has been consistent(What's Hill's message today?)

Yes, Hillary has experience, and knows her policies; Obama has intelligence, judgment honesty, and inclusivity as part of what he brings to the contest and will bring to the office of President. Obama will not magically make things better; he has said many times that it will take hard work and all Americans coming together.

Hopefully the Democratic party will be the first example of this coming together, by choosing Barack Obama as the candidate for the general election.

The time is right to turn the page...going back to the Clintons would be a huge mistake....Hillary as the candidate would ensure that the Republicans win again...even after 8 years of a Bush disaster.

How sad will that be?

Posted by: BGreat_in2008 | February 17, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

wpost 4112 wrote, "This has nothing to do with women in power...it has everything to do with the one woman running for office and her proven corrupt past.

Cattle futures. Whitewater. Troopergate. Failed Health initiative, Monica, War vote, Flag-burning vote, Chinese donations, Travelgate, no access to documents at Clinton library, No tax return release, race baiting, Mark Penn, Co-presidency, no FISA vote, negative ads, lies, deceit, fear-mongering.

NOTHING to do with women in power, just THIS woman."

Hey, wpost 4112, you forgot HRC's former partner in the Rose Law Firm who was working in Washington: Vince Foster!! Did they figure out exactly how and why he died?

I personally think the country has had enough of the Clintons' "experience" as she calls it!!!!!


Posted by: ArmyVet | February 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"I guess you could say George W. Bush out-smarted McCain, Kerry, Gore and others over the course of his political career."


I could but i wouldn't because it wouldn't be true.
Georgie used the dirtiest possible campaigning to
win his nomination and stole the election from Gore.

Not only has Barack had a completely positive campaign, he did it brilliantly without drama, organizing an extensive grassroots organization in every state.

Somethnig Hillary didn't bother to do because she assumed she would have wrapped it up after New Hampshire.

Barack is an entirely a different political animal than Bush or Clinton.

He has integrity.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

""pruevable" proves you are a provable nincompoop."


LOL. No, it proves I am a poor typist. I can live with that.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary has more intellect than Obama."

The fact that Barack has out-smarted her during this campaign disproves that rather decisively....

...From a strong marriage to an amazing woman to his campaign team, his people-sense is superb.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 05:05 PM

I guess you could say George W. Bush out-smarted McCain, Kerry, Gore and others over the course of his political career.

A "smart" campaigner is not automatically a good leader--as George W Bush has proven decisively. (By the way, Bush seems to have a pretty good marriage, too.)

I'm reminded of how people commended the team of Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and others that Bush put together...

Posted by: Alan4 | February 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 05:18 PM

"pruevable" proves you are a provable nincompoop.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Other than that, things feel pretty much the same if not even more divisive than ever... "


You should get out more.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Obama, will not debate Hillary, because he is too arrogant and thinks' that he has won the Democratic Nomination. "

More nonsense.

It was Hillary who advertised herself last year as the inevitable nominee and made no plans beyond Feb 5. Her arrogance was shattered when Barack brilliantly won Iowa with lots of humble grassroots work. Her arrogance ran through 130 million dollars in 2 months and she had to loan herself 5 million while Obama was and is raising 2x the money by grassroots internet organization.

The only arrogance that is proveable belongs to Hillary.

That fact that she hires people based on their loyalty and not their competence completes the comparison between her and George W Bush.

Spin all you want. The facts will never lie.

The only fairy tale is the one called Hillaryland.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is hoping there are enough who are too lazy to think, too lazy to work, and too afraid to have courage. "The world is falling and only I can fix it for you."

Barack is showing us that together we can make the changes necessary to get this nation out of the rut it has been in for years.


Gee, that wouldn't by chance be rooted in the accident of birth symbolism of being gifted with a dual racial background, would it ??? Just think, if the guy were fully caucasian he would have garnered less attention than Dennis Kucinich, who btw happens to have an equally uplifting life story without the color advantage.

No, the only truly substantial bipartisan change I've seen demonstrated this campaign season is the invention of his own super sized, self-referential "Experience BO" revival rallies. So I do give the guy credit for an instinctual and inspirational ability to mesmerize non partisan fans of all stripes, including Republicans and Independents.

Other than that, things feel pretty much the same if not even more divisive than ever...


Posted by: elayman | February 17, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama, will not debate Hillary, because he is too arrogant and thinks' that he has won the Democratic Nomination. He is very similar to the Republician President he spoke of admiring recently. " It's the same old politics" and "There you go again". These are his current responses to Hillary's truth ad. The Same as his admired Republician President had Stated to Jimmy Carter during their debate. Obama, does not seem to have any original thoughts. His Campaign messages Echos those of: Jessie Jackson (Hope, Yes We Can) Bill Clinton (Working Harder Less Pay)

Posted by: vze21a9c | February 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama, will not debate Hillary, because he is too arrogant and thinks' that he has won the Democratic Nomination. He is very similar to the Republician President he spoke of admiring recently. " It's the same old politics" and "There you go again". These are his current responses to Hillary's truth ad. The Same as his admired Republician President had Stated to Jimmy Carter during their debate. Obama, does not seem to have any original thoughts. His Campaign messages Echos those of: Jessie Jackson (Hope, Yes We Can) Bill Clinton (Working Harder Less Pay)

Posted by: vze21a9c | February 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary has more intellect than Obama."

The fact that Barack has out-smarted her during this campaign disproves that rather decisively.

As does the fact of his standing at Harvard, compared to Hillary's repeated failure to pass the bar.

The more important thing, besides Obama's proven intellect, is his heart and vision. From a strong marriage to an amazing woman to his campaign team, his people-sense is superb.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has more intellect than Obama.I'm' Democrat and will vote for the nominee,but the more I see of Obama,the less I like him. He has a mean attitude.
Also,Why is it racism to state the fact that Obama is confident that he has the vote
of an overwhelming precentage of Black Americans because he is black.Hillary has mostly women voting for her but the pundits
try to make it a negative.The vote in both cases should be on yhe merits of the canidate.Any thing less does not meet a higher standard.
Obama played the race card when he made a
big deal out of the remark by Pres.Clinton
Hillary has my vote.

Posted by: lfindley | February 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain would love a 3 way split. That's how he got where he is today.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The interesting thing though is that Barack received more votes than Hillary and McCain combined in the last primary in Virginia.

The real issue is whether the nomination is won fair and square, and it seems to me 2 things are essential for the Democratic party to remain united after the convention in August:

1. Florida and Michigan cannot alter the final count. They broke the rules. There is no way around this one.

2. Whoever receives the highest popular vote and the highest number of delegates should be our nominee and the superdelegates should not deny the pick of the majority, be it Hillary or Barack.

Should either of these principles fail, the party will split and the fall-out will be felt for years.

It is indeed possible that a third party will form around Barack because that is where the energy and momentum is. That would make for a fascinating election...3 parties. McCain, Clinton and Barack.



Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Fact: Everyone who votes for Clinton is not a racist.

Fact: Everyone who votes for Obama is not a misogynist.

Some people actually like Clinton, and don't believe she committed all those crimes she's accused of (none of which she's ever been found guilty of).

Some people actually like Obama, and believe he has enough experience to be president.

Unless Democrats want McCain to continue Bush's policies, you're going to have to get out of this "destroy" the other candidate mentality.

The GOP is watching, and they're loving the attacks. They're the ones who thought up most of them ("Billary", "say anything and do anything to get elected").

True, they've had 17 years to build up a history of hatred against the Clintons. But watch how fast they compile codewords and snide comments (e.g., Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, attends a black separatist church that praises Louis Farakkan, etc.) when he gets put under the microscope. Facts don't matter, the accusations alone will tarnish him in the minds of voters just as they've baselessly tarnished Clinton.

Don't forget: George W Bush won a national election just over 3 years ago. Do you really think droves of voters will be flocking to Obama just because he gets 90% of the black vote in the primaries (which all Democrats get in the general election anyway)? Don't kid yourself.

Posted by: Alan4 | February 17, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Obama are trying to show to the whole world. Vote for being black"


Nice try.

Accusing Obama of using race will never make it so. But that hasn't stopped you from using race in doing so.

You well represent Hillary...so desperate that all you can do is play the tired old race card.

Viva? isn't that a paper towel? Why don't you use that to clean up your act? It's dirty enough.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

We are all "IRRELEVANT". States that have already voted and states like Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio that are yet to have their voice heard are all "IRRELEVANT". The voters across this country who follow the campaign and come out to vote in their state's primaries and caucuses have been described as less qualified to determing who is the best candidate for President among Democrats than are those coveted Super Delegates, and therefore, we are all "IRRELEVANT".

These are the arrogant and insulting words of top Clinton Campaign chief, Harold Ickes, boldly telling it like it is (at least in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and her campaign). Here are some excerpts from Ickes interview, which reveals the total lack of respect Hillary Clinton has for voters in this country and for the process of voting in primaries and caucuses to elct our party's nominee for President:

A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be "irrelevant" to their decision.

Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign's convention strategy.


Even though averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing, the Clinton camp is stressing the electability argument.


But he said superdelegates -- who "have a sense of what it takes to get elected" -- would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton. Ickes said superdelegates must "exercise their best judgment" about who can win the White House. In essence, he argued the party's 795 superdelegates (Connecticut Independent-Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman recently was stripped of his superdelegate status) were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates.


The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination -- attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the eleventh hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan,"

Many top Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said superdelegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses and not trump those votes.

---------------------
It's hard to believe this is the same candidate who hypocritically preaches about the importance of letting the voters in Michigan and Florida having their voices heard. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would very much like to win the vote of people in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - but the truth is that she really doesn't care how those voters feel - she has a plan to win without us anyway and stifle the voice of the people, because we are "IRRELEVANT".

Posted by: diksagev | February 17, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It has been very good showing that Clinton is emerging. Finally, the voters are showing how much they really care for our country. The voters know what's going on expecially with our economy. The voters realize that this is not thetime to be joking around. This is the very crucial time to be serious about our country. We need someone that has proven good results. Under the Clinton Administration, our economy was good and even had surplus. they have done it before, Hillary will do it again.We are just so fortunate that there this woman who mean business for our country. there is this woman who really care for the good of the people of the United States, who cares for children, who cares for the health of everyone who cannot afford. Housing is so bad that homeowners have to leave their houses since they cannot afford to make pay,snts. Our time for recovery is forthcoming. Welcom Hillary! Our country need you. It is not Obama as his wife suggest, to vote for her husband because he is black. They changing now the standards for presidency. Do we need to vote because of our color? Are we doing down or try to degrade ourselves to vote for our color not about experience, knowledge proven results or accomplishments? I think we are better than that. No matter what color or race you are if you are the best qualified, experience candidate, so be it. We are just fortunate voters that we are intelligent that we understand what the Obama are trying to show to the whole world. Vote for being black.......It is very sad...very very sad. It is because of theri inner ambitious intention that whatever they want to do to be elected. Like I said over and over again, we are intelligent voters. Even peopel who did not go through fromal education know better than that.......voting because of color is not the right thing to do. We are going to elect a President of the United States, with dignity and to be proud of. This is huge job, not just a job. We are not going to vote for because he is black or white or asian or hispanic, Qualities, experience.......We love our country and I think we deserve the best. We are country need help for recovery and that means we need an experience, knowledgeable candidate. And so far, Hillary is the one. they have proven good results before, Hillary will do it again. Viva America! Viva Hillary!

Posted by: lianette_steele | February 17, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Not even a 1/4 of the Senators voted againt the war. Unlike Obama who as a IL state Senator voted Present a good deal of the time a US Senator has to vote yes or no based on the best available info. Which Hillary and 75% of the SENATE did."


More nonsense.

Voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate is a recognized parliamentary tactic. And Barack's "present" votes were less than 1 percent of all his votes.

Speaking of real US Senate votes, where was Hillary on the recent FISA vote?? Barack voted.
Hillary didn't.

Guess she isn't ready on day one after all.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Not even a 1/4 of the Senators voted againt the war. Unlike Obama who as a IL state Senator voted Present a good deal of the time a US Senator has to vote yes or no based on the best available info. Which Hillary and 75% of the SENATE did.

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Chris Mathews had the Gov. of Wisconsin on hard ball last week and ask him to name some of Obama's accomplishments he couldn't name any yet he endorsed him go figure!"

Not true. I was watching that show. Gov Doyle rightly mentioned Barack's landmark bill on Ethics Reform. Watch the show again...Chris spun it the way he wanted to.

Now mention any meaningful bill senator Clinton has passed in her 2 terms.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

um. Not everyone allowed themself to be so easily duped.

All the Senators who voted against the war...

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris Mathews had the Gov. of Wisconsin on hard ball last week and ask him to name some of Obama's accomplishments he couldn't name any yet he endorsed him go figure!

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

OH by the way a lot of people trusted Bush on both sides of the isle. I repete who would have thought the President of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would lie to get us in a war.

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Which older Bro would that be?

Someone like the civil rights giant Representative John Lewis of Georgia?

He's down with it. Bro.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

UM,Um ask a Bro what he thinks especially an older Bro.

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"wpost 4112 - that was a terrible thing to say about ANY state."

It's quite a reasonable observation.

I'll be thrilled if they prove me wrong.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

It's really quite extraordinary because what Hillary and the Clintons are saying is that the votes and delegates don't really matter because the caucuses are not democratic and shouldn't count.

Talk about voter disenfranchisement!

How anyone can defend this blatant attempt to steal the nomination is beyond rationality.

Desperation, thy name is Hillary!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

wpost 4112 - that was a terrible thing to say about ANY state. Frankly, it sounds like the kind of thing I would imagine the Clinton Campaign would say in their meetings behind closed doors when planning their strategy and how they can best target certain demographic groups in any state holding elections, but I choose to believe that those Clintonesque assessments are only true of a small minority of voters from any of those Clinton targeted demographic groups and should not be used to paint entire segments of our society or the citizens of an entire state with a broad brush. Certainly these are NOT the type of things that are said or thought concerning people by Senator Obama or those who support his candidacy. No wonder you use the generic ID rather than identify yourself while making a post of that nature!

Posted by: diksagev | February 17, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

How does it feel to be "IRRELEVANT, Wisconsin. That's exactly what top Clinton Campaign executive Harold Ickes said about you and all of the other states that have yet to vote this year. He very clearly and unapologetically stated that Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination because the Super Delegate (which he refers to call "alternate delegates") will strongly support Hillary and that this makes states like Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania "IRRELEVANT".

Why should Barrack Obama agree to yet another debate with Hillary Clinton? I have NOT watched all 18 of the debates so far, but I have seen more than enough of them to get a very good idea of who the best candidate is, and I'm sure that voters in Wisconsin have had the same opportunity that I had down in Florida. It is always the losing candidate who seeks more debates (feeling as though they have nothing to lose) and the more desperate the candidate - the more they feel the need to debate. There is absolutely no reason that Senator Obama should give into Hillary; allowing her to get free TV time, tie Senator Obama down to debate while there are 3 Clintons camapigning against him, and all Hillary wants to do is use the opportunity to repeat more lies about her opponent.

Whether it is in debates, during her stump speech, or the negative campaign ads that she is running in Wusconsin, Texas and Ohio; virtually everything Hillary Clinton has to say lately regarding Senator Obama is Hillary's atempt to distort Obama's positions with lie after lie after lie. I hope that everyone has read FACT CHECKER's debunking of Clintons distortion of Obama's vote on the energy bill that she uses to lie about his giving tax breaks to the oil companies. Former President Clinton;s own Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, is as good a sourse as any to consult when comparing the Universal Health Care proposals of both candidates. America is counting on the "IRRELEVANT" voters of Wisconsin to see through the Clinton lies and support the candidate who provides a new course for American politics with a plan to restore the government of the people, by the people and for the people of this country.

Posted by: diksagev | February 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Um.

1. His father is an african. His mother is american. If anyone is an African-American, it is Barack. Racism doesn't ask if your ancestors were slaves,it only looks at the color of your skin.

2. Barack was in the midst of a campaign to become a Senator when he took the position he did. A gutsy thing to do. Hillary didn't even read the full National Intelligence Estimate. She TRUSTED Bush and Cheney. That's a serious lack of judgment. She was more concerned with her re=election than our safety.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Fact about Barrack Hussein Obama. His father was a blackman from Africa his mother from Kansas. Although his skin is black he is not a Afro-American His father and his ancesstors didn't follow the same plight as an AA and his mothers side didn't either.
Obama wasn't sworn into the Senate until Jan 4,2005 so he couldn't have voted one way or the other on the war even if he wanted to. Had he actually been a US SENATOR and been privy to the same lies Bush presented as intelligence (who would have ever thought our President would lie to get us in a war) how can he honestly say which way he would have voted! Since he has been in the Senate his voting record on the war is identical to Hillary's

Posted by: cowboy66 | February 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of blank sheets of paper, where is
Hillary's tax returns??

We certainly know what she did with 130 million dollars in her campaign fund....gone after 2 months of wasteful spending. And still she doesn't have enough to leave a tip in a diner...or pay the dry cleaner guy for past bills.

Wonder what she'll do with our money in DC!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why people call the Hillary add negative. Is a fact, even Obama manager said they don't want more debate so that what she is saying in a add.
And I thought when you running a add you need to talk about the differences, so look at the add again and I think if you not hard core Obama fan you will say this is pretty normal add.
I love the Washington post article about Obama blank CV basically, is easy to promises when you had white page when it come to experience. Yes he done some services but I know more citizens that done more for people that need our help than he done with all his wealth and power.

nicole

Posted by: nicole_sarkiss | February 17, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why people call the Hillary add negative. Is a fact, even Obama manager said they don't want more debate so that what she is saying in a add.
And I thought when you running a add you need to talk about the differences, so look at the add again and I think if you not hard core Obama fan you will say this is pretty normal add.
I love the Washington post article about Obama blank CV basically, is easy to promises when you had white page when it come to experience. Yes he done some services but I know more citizens that done more for people that need our help than he done with all his wealth and power.


Posted by: nicole_sarkiss | February 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why people call the Hillary add negative. Is a fact, even Obama manager said they don't want more debate so that what she is saying in a add.
And I thought when you running a add you need to talk about the differences, so look at the add again and I think if you not hard core Obama fan you will say this is pretty normal add.
I love the Washington post article about Obama blank CV basically, is easy to promises when you had white page when it come to experience. Yes he done some services but I know more citizens that done more for people that need our help than he done with all his wealth and power.


Posted by: nicole_sarkiss | February 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

SORRY HILLARY.....It's OBAMA-TIME !!!!!!!!!!

WISCONSIN FOR OBAMA !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwNlaY8busw

Posted by: Rubiconski | February 17, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The Florida/Michigan matter and the Superdelegate matter are completely different.

Florida/Michigan is a matter concerning rules. Those 2 states broke the rules, which all parties had agreed to, knowing full well that they would lose their delegates. Without the rule of law, without respect for rules, we would have no country at all. If these 2 states are allowed to seat their delegates, future Democratic primaries or any process of the Democratic party will be subject to willy-nilly changes...in other words, chaos.

The role of the Superdelegates is also set. They are independent votes. Barack is asking them to vote according to how the popular vote goes. He is not demanding this, just asking. Superdelegates can do what they want. No one, including Barack, is saying that they must vote that way.

One has to do with changing the rules.
One has to do persuading voters to vote a certain way.

Two different things altogether. No hypocrisy.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm not surprised by Hillary's negative ads. These are mild compared to, oh, say, trying to STEAL an election by breaking the delegate rules in Florida and Michigan. I had so much respect for the Clintons until this election season. They are willing to do anything to anybody at any time to "win" the election. I do not want a president who will push her agenda by any means necessary. I'm voting for Obama,and if he doesn't win the nomination, I won't be voting at all.

Posted by: Seneca7 | February 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

In all fairness the DNP should step up and admit signals were given before the campaigns even began that Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated no matter who won the state.. Especially Florida since it was republicans in control of moving their primary up and breaking the rules. The party can ill afford to have Florida feel alienated in the general election. Instead they let Clinton take the fall.
No one thought then these delegates could determine the nomination and I do not think they will or should now. But to bash Sen. Clinton for trying to do what is best for the party while giving Obama a pass for trying to change the super delegate rules put in place long ago is the height of hypocrisy!
Super delegates were put in place when the party decided to make the nomination so open to outside influences. They were created for exactly the situation we now face, when a movement threatens to co-opt the political party and/or the voters are swayed toward someone who may not be best for the party or country.
We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public. What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November? In all likelihood this will be decided on popular vote, I only hope Florida's count does not have an impact. God help us if (shades of 2000) the overall popular vote is thwarted because of a technicality (not counting) involving Florida! I blame the Democrat National Party for this fiasco and for not having the courage to defend their position(s).

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I am a Obama supporter, but all this talk of "post-age," while understandable, is not at all what Obama is about.

This is no yellow brick road to Oz. This is an opportunity to become responsible citizens again. To protect the Constitution and the re-balance the power sharing amongst the three branches of government.

While it is true that many have just jumped on the bandwagon because of the human tendency to go with the flow, Barack has been very clear that any change will depend on us, the citizenry.

There will still be racism, culture wars, cynism, et al...we are after all still human...but we weil have elected a leader for ourselves who is experienced in and committed to dealing with those matters and finding compromises that work towards the GREATER GOOD.

Barack isn't divine. He's as human, as imperfect, as the rest of us. But he is smart, hard-working, and inspirational...everything Bush is not. He does not have the narcissistic and emotional baggage of the Clintons, which overshadowed their 8 years in the WH, undermined their agenda, and allowed Bush to take the WH and characters like Tom DeLay to rise and flourish.

This is not a "post"-age. This is an age of renewal...renewing the core promise of the Constitution...all persons being equal under the law and free to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Human nature will never change. Human behavior can, but only with intelligence, hard work and courage.

Hillary is hoping there are enough who are too lazy to think, too lazy to work, and too afraid to have courage. "The world is falling and only I can fix it for you."

Barack is showing us that together we can make the changes necessary to get this nation out of the rut it has been in for years. It is a message of hope grounded in reality....He is hoping that we are smart enough to want to take responsibility for our lives, that we are willing to work hard for our country and our children's future, that we are courageous enough to trust in ourselves and our ability to do the right thing for the right reason....at least enough of us to make a difference.

We know how dysfunctional the Clintons were. no need to go back there. We must look ahead and build on the best of the past.

It's a gamble worth taking.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't think I've ever seen a movement as strong as the Obama campaign. (well, maybe Ron Paul for the true believers). It's almost messianic.

I wonder, can anyone put their finger on exactly *why* they like him? What's at the essence of his cult of personality? Is it that he doesn't demonize his opponents, as most politicians do?

Posted by: JD | February 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Rubiconski | February 17, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

If you think Obama is funky to have near the white house you certainly will want to see this you tube video that Hillary and Bill don't want anyone to see. Look at the largest fund raising fraud in American History accomplshed by our very own "Bill and Hillary" against Peter Paul and Stan Lee from the Hollywood Marvel Comics group~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related

Posted by: seasandand | February 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

***
The change isn't him, it's us. This is the post age.

Post-racism, post-culture wars, post-cynical, post-irony, post-identity politics, post-old ways that don't work, post cronyism, post buying people, post-cutthroat, post-apathetic, post-pathetic, post-giving up on everything, post-giving up on ourselves, post-surrendering, post-breaking down, post-fighting, post settling for far less than our potential, post-being ashamed of our president, our country, ourselves, post being humiliated by those elected to serve us, post-dynasties and machines, post-ugly.
***

Go krnewman!!!

Posted by: pinepine | February 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

svreader is a troll - just ignore them.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

My Washington Post "Post" Post

A little forest for those too pre-occupied with the trees. You can't put live coals back in the sack. It might be 9 years late, but the millenium has at last arrived. And it's not about Obama, as he himself acknowledges. He's just the first big politician to be associated with the new pirit of the times. There will be many more. It doesn't matter if he wins the nomination or gets elected, the change has already happened. The change isn't him, it's us. This is the post age.

Post-racism, post-culture wars, post-cynical, post-irony, post-identity politics, post-old ways that don't work, post cronyism, post buying people, post-cutthroat, post-apathetic, post-pathetic, post-giving up on everything, post-giving up on ourselves, post-surrendering, post-breaking down, post-fighting, post settling for far less than our potential, post-being ashamed of our president, our country, ourselves, post being humiliated by those elected to serve us, post-dynasties and machines, post-ugly.

Posted by: krnewman | February 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign forced Clinton to spend a lot of money and time in Wisconsin in a fruitless pursuit of victory. She is now leaving the state a day earlier and a lot poorer.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/rope-a-dope/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Go LaCrosse!!!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

jmschaldach | February 17, 2008 11:13 AM

Sorry to hear you are very sad.

As we speak, there are 298 comments above mine. Did you read 66.6% of comments or four of every six?

Just asking.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully people will wake up before its too late.

The more I learn about Obama the more I don't want him anywhere near the whitehouse.


Posted by: svreader | February 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

The personal attacks posted here coming from both camps make me very sad. All people deserve respect. We may oppose their ideas and actions vehemently but to disrespect one another is to disrespect ourselves.

The view from La Crosse, WI, is this:

All of southern and western WI will go solidly for Obama (not just Madison as wpost says). The question is, will Obama win WI 2 to 1 or just 3 to 2.

Posted by: jmschaldach | February 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

If Obama is such a grand and great consensus builder, why didn't he do more in his 3 years in the Senate? Isn't Hillary the more respected and powerful Senator? If experience does not matter, why didn't Obama become an immediate star in the Senate? Instead he has a pretty ho-hum record that smacks of covering his tracks for a run at President. Isn't that kind of politics that Obama claims he does not do? How about Excelon? What about the public financing waffle? Hillary's ads seem quite tame compared to the stuff Obama's campaign throws out there.

Posted by: hdimig | February 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

All these great changes are to come from Barack....

Just once tell me how you are going to make all those changes??? I never here how, just we are going to make change.

Well that won't cut it in the general election and if he was to win, you better have answers for the congress or else you will get nothing done. I don't want the Republicans bashing Democrats in 4 years, going on and on about our vision that was never to be.

Now we know that Hilary is a person that is tough and will fight for her cause. She can take a stab in the back and defiantly play with the international community.

She is far from perfect, but to be president you have to play hard.

I think Barack would make a great Vice-President but I think the Republicans, as dirty as they fight, would walk all over him.

Posted by: Pumpkin31 | February 17, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Don't you worry about Clinton's finances, her supporters are strong and many and we will make sure she has enough to counter Obamas empty rhetoric

Posted by: marichicm | February 17, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Be prepared WI, TX & OH, to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home. Their disingenuous attempt to seat the bogus delegates from FL & MI is utterly nauseating. Cheating, lying, distorting, triangulating are all second nature to the Clintons. Their arrogant sense of entitlement and ruthless determination to extend the Bush/Clinton dynasty at any cost should make all Americans turn their collective backs in disgust.

The Clintons epitomize the broken, dysfunctional status quo. For sixteen, long years they have fueled the rabid, polarizing partisan division that has crippled Washington.

Barack Obama represents the opportunity to reject the failed politics of the past and unite Americans around an uplifting, inspirational vision for the future. Those, whom have never felt a reason worth participating in the political process, are supporting Barack in record, unprecedented numbers. They have found in Barack Obama a candidate worthy of believing in. He is a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion with the strength to take on the political machines that are determined to destroy his message of hope and unity.

Our nation is at a historic crossroad, facing enormous challenges both at home and across the world. It is time to seize this moment in history, look to the future with an optimistic, unyielding resolve and make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Check out the phony, pandering fraud....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac&NR=1

Posted by: ccoblas | February 17, 2008 6:32 AM | Report abuse

I am funding Obama's campaign. I and over 500,000 others. Who's paying you?

Stop asking stupid questions you know the answers to.

You and your fuhreress are negative, insinuating, Liars.

Same old politics. I can't believe you people are seriously passionate about Hillary Clinton. You MUST be getting paid.

White House or Bust, huh? Let's hope it's Bust. For the sake of the U.S. we must stop this over-ambitious woman!

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 17, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's exposing her own A$$.

We all knew she was a Nasty Betch, but now we can see why.

Let nothing stand in her way. She has been waiting for this for a LOOONG time: Her Piece of History.

She is a flat out Liar. Like her "husband"

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | February 17, 2008 4:03 AM | Report abuse

George Bush has been your president for the last eight years. He is a bumbling idiot. Surely Obama is more intelligent and can also handle the job. It isn't so much the President, but all his support staff that run the affairs of the Office of President. The president does not make decisions in a vacuum.

So your argument that Obama cannot do the job simply does not hold water.

What is important is that here is a young man who motivates the nation to believe again in its government. Who wants to do something different in Washington. It would not matter if Hillary or McCain were pure governmental genuises...what matters is that Obama is different and the people want change. Time to pass the torch to the next generation. Old ideas die and new ones have arrived. This is a new day.

Posted by: paul260426 | February 17, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

TO ALL WHO THINK OBAMA IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEMS PLEASE CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING WEB SITE. IT TAKES JUST A FEW SECONDS TO SEE WHAT AN EXPERT HAS TO SAY ABOUT OBAMAS SPENDING PLAN AND HOW IT WILL AFFECT YOUR POCKET BOOK. THIS INFO IS NOT PARTISAN BY ANY MEANS The site is realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obama IT IS REAL INFORMATIVE. MUCH DIFFERENT THAT WHAT OBAMA SAYS

Posted by: abutterbutt | February 17, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

Once we dump the toxic hag onto the ash heap of history, svreader will disappear.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 16, 2008 10:22 PM

Comments like this one terrify me.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 17, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Every day I read about this election, I get more disappointed. It seems that the American public is determined to continue the policies of this administration in the name of McCain. The Democrats are committing suicide by nominating Sen. Obama. The Republican smear machine will make minced meat out of him and then they will add the utterings of his Omarosa type wife, thus making McCain a sure in. I admit that Mrs. Clinton is not an angel, however,she is the least of the two evils.I am sure that Sen. Obama has done some pretty nasty things when he was growing up, things that will make people think twice before voting him as our next President. I would have loved to see former US Representative Ford, from Tennessee, run and he would have been more electable than Sen. Obama.

Posted by: maitami | February 17, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is experienced at what? She is a first term senator just like Obama. Just because she is married to a person with experience doesnt meand she has it. My wife is a nurse and I am a surgeon, just because we are married doesnt mean she should operate on people!!! Wake up and smell the charade she has just as much or as little experience as Obama, she is a complete falicy. Please, please tell me something she has accomplished on her own?

Posted by: matpoe | February 17, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Who thinks Barack will be a disaster? Name me one thing that Hillary not Bill Clinton has accomplished (health care reform...not, blocking Bush irresponsible tax cuts.....not, Preventing authorization of the disasterous Iraq war...not). Please she is running on his record, if her last name were Rodham we never would have heard of her!!! Barack made his own way in the world and despite overwhelming odds made his way to Harvard Law School, to the Illinois legislature, to the Senate and to be a contender the the office of the President of the United States. This man is a doer and will work to change Washington. In contrast all Hillary cares about is getting elected AT ALL COSTS. If you cannot see through this thinly veiled charade you do not deserve the right to vote!!!!!

Posted by: matpoe | February 17, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

I am a lifelong Democrat, and it frightens me to know what may happen to our country if Barack Obama is elected. He is not presidential material at all. Just hype without substance. He is the one who is on the Straight Talk Express without ANY wheels. He is all about hype and fancy speeches. I think Obama should disclose where he is getting millions of dollars pouring in each week for his campaign. Who is funding his campaign? I don't believe for a second that it is all public funding. Let's get real. Somebody is bankrolling his campaign big time. Could it be "Vice-President" Oprah? He is suppose to be accepting public funding for campaign contributions. VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, she is the best candidate for President. She is experienced, strong and knowledgeable. She knows what the job of being a President entails, and will leave office with a strong, effective legacy for this country. Hillary will not embrace cordial chats with leaders of terrorist countries, nor will she flounder when the arrogance of global challenges confront her. Obama simply is not experienced in this. Anyone can give fancy speeches when a professional speech writer composes them. Obama will not be able to put his money where his mouth is when it's time to stand on the front lines for this country. He may be a nice man, but in my opinion he is not leadership material for this country. Perhaps in 8 years, but not now.

Posted by: teacup653 | February 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

I guess what I dont understand is that Barack has swept the last 8 or so primaries and has a lead in delegate counts and all CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post can talk about is the about this devisive family that cares more about their success than the future of this great nation. The Clinton's are good at stealing the headlines with all of Clinton's. Can we please stop talking these same as usual Washington political games. I hope the voters in Wisconsin and beyond can see through all of the Clinton created smoke and mirrors and elect the best candidate for the job, the best candidate in recent memory, Barack Obama.

Posted by: matpoe | February 17, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

The smugness of Obama and his cultish supporters grows by the hour. Now we're told that if Clinton takes the Wisconsin primary, it's because Wisconsin is full of racist Germans.

Not that Obama is being (gasp!) "negative." No, no, no! Don't you know that Obama is a saint? Someone tell me where to vomit, because I feel tonight's dinner coming back up.

Posted by: MagicDog | February 17, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

The smugness of Obama and his cultish supporters grows by the hour. Now we're told that if Clinton takes the Wisconsin primary, it's because Wisconsin is full of racist Germans.

Not that Obama is being (gasp!) "negative." No, no, no! Don't you know that Obama is a saint? Someone tell me where to vomit, because I feel tonight's dinner coming back up.

Posted by: MagicDog | February 17, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

mibrooks --

I'm a guy. I donate to campaigns, not the other way around. I've worked for myself my whole life and have made millions over the years.

I not only used to be a Republican, but a major Republican campaign contributor as well.

I became a Democrat after suffering a near-death experience.

The fact I'm bothered by Obama's repeated cocaine use comes from the fact that I'm a parent.

Kids are constantly looking for role models.

By giving Obama a "get out of jail free card" we are sending a horrible message to our children.

Obama's messsage is that if you don't get caught and you publish it in a book, it doesn't matter that you committed multiple felonies.

That's morally indefensible.

If we choose Obama as our standard-bearer it sends the message that doing anyhing illegal is alright, as long as you don't get caught and have a silver tongue.

Obama is the most slick salesman I've seen in quite a while, but I'm lucky to have seen a lot of them over the years.

My personal experience has been that the slicker they are the less they deliver.

I'm sincerely concerned that Obama will be a disaster.

He's good a "faking it" but he doesn't know what he's doing, and it shows in every debate.

That's why I post.

In the perhaps futile hope that I can get at least one person seduced by Obama to focus on the issues instead.


Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Do you really believe what you write:

"The way in which politics has been conducted ill serves the American public, but his new politics of hope can change things."

Stop daydreaming. You sound like a rookie and should be writing a sports column!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 16, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's answer to anything negative said about him is

A) You are a racist

and or

B) Same old politics

Sadly the media happily went along.

Posted by: jsindc | February 16, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Right she pulled out early and left junk on the airwaves. It is pathetic. And they actually think they can win running a campaign in that fashion. Someone needs to document this entire dabacle and title it "How to Lose a Campaign".

Posted by: ddraper81 | February 16, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Re: The Wisconsin Debate Flap

Anyone who's followed politics for any length of time can see what's going on here. The person who's lagging behind in the polls and in fundraising demands a debate (i) for free air time and (ii) to pull the opponent off the campaign trail for the debate and the preparation. They're debating next week in Texas and the week after that in Ohio. This is a phony issue and Hillary knows it.

P.S. - Hillary's canceled her last day in WI. Can it be that she thinks it's in the bag, so she can get back to TX and OH? I think not. I suspect her internal polling tells her it's out of reach so she's cutting her losses and going back to TX (where an ARG poll puts Obama up by 6) to hold him off there. Running out of chances!

Posted by: jac13 | February 16, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

hikay - Ignore svreader. She is one of the Clinton campaign hacks that pop's up on these pages (and elsewhere). They take their "talking points" from the campaign. Earlier is was thinly veiled racist remarks. When that backfired, they came up with the current garbage. Once we dump the toxic hag onto the ash heap of history, svreader will disappear.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 16, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Why are people so quick to label everything Mrs. Clinton does or say as negative? As the front runner Mr. Obama better toughen up because if he thinks this is negative, I have news for you. I sure hope he doesn't think no one is suppose to question him. This is a campaign after all.

By the way, of course Mrs. Clinton wants to win, that is the point.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have had one debate with just the two of them. Why is he sfraid of debating her one on one?

Posted by: catmomtx | February 16, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"He said he convene meetings with the insurance companies, etc, and put it all on CSPAN to figure out what to do about health care."

OK, so what's wrong with that? I'd like to know what their thoughts are too. With the overwhelming failure of healthcare reform, it surely can't hurt. And its a much more worthy to put that on TV, IMHO, than hearings about which baseball player used steroids.

Posted by: hikaya | February 16, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

In response to vegetablesplease, I throw my support to Olympia Snowe.

Let's get a "Draft Olympia" website going for 2012. I'd volunteer to work for her.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 16, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

i have believed from the beginning that hillary is the best and have not changed my mind.

obama's supporters and hillary's critics are a nasty and calculating lot. they slander people who vote for hillary, accusing them of voter fraud. they started a fight by calling hillary the 'democrat from punjab' and accused her daughter of 'pimping'. and obama has been been collecting a lot of campaign money from lobbyists.what happened to the guy who claimed he is an 'outsider to washington'-he is playing the washington game in and out since then. obama has been selling 'hope' and no substance. he should be running for church minister.his supporters label anybody who backs hillary a 'racist'.every obama supporter has a different story about bill clinton's 'racist' comments.that is their version-bill clinton is not remotely racist. and their excuse is that they are voting for obama because of bill's alleged statements. then the press jumps in,the republicans(who have a racist voting record in the immigration debate of 2007) get gleeful.

i despise mccain because of his racism on immigration, his warmongering,his flip-flopping and poor political record.

but america does not seem to ready for a woman president or a second generation immigrant president, whose mother was white but his father was from kenya.

Posted by: sd71 | February 16, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it: . . the media has gotten their marching orders. Obama is to be the Democratic nominee so McCain can beat him in November. . . . Every time Hillary sneezes, she's a loser, but Obama can pass gas and he's a winner. Obama is a walking race card, but let Bill Clinton say that Obama's campaign is a lot like Jessie Jackson's because Obama drew 80% of the black vote, and the press hammers and hammers and hammers and hammers on him for being a bigot. . . . . Hillary has four times the understanding and experience than Obama; her health care plan is more of a change than Obama's, but Obama is the change candidate. . . . It's crazy but who's driving the media???????????

By the way, what change is Obama really for? . . . . The only real change candidate is Ron Paul. He lays it out; there's no question about his vision. But Obama just says, change, change, change, but gives us no vision as to what he's talking about. . . . . Believe me, it's Obama that the Republicans want to run against, otherwise, why is the media so much in his camp.

PS: . . No candidate to date has mention the "OVERPOPULATION" word. Overpopulation, the unspeakable issue.

Posted by: coldcomfort | February 16, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

She was campaign supporter of Barry Goldwater around the time he was against the Civil Rights. Now she has the nerve to talk about how moved she was by Martin L. King's speech. She is a political phony, who lacks good judgment. She lacked it then, and she lacks it now.


Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 06:10 PM

I am most definitely not a Hillary supporter as any regular of this blog knows. However, Hillary Clinton was in HIGH SCHOOL in 1964. Give her a frigging break on this for God's sake. Her family was solidly Republican. Like many in our generation (I am about 5 years younger) her views changed considerably in college.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 16, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary co-sponsored legislation to ban flag burning. She would destroy freedom of expression, one of the main foundations of American values, to save a few yards of made-in-China fabric.

Many of her policy positions make no sense to me (freezing all adjustable mortgages rates for five years--the financially responsible subsidizing the financially irresponsible). Obama's policy positions are far more sensible to me.

On the substance, which is all I care about, the decision is very easy for me. How can anyone support a candidate who would destroy freedom of expression to save some cheap polyester? How?

Posted by: comments99 | February 16, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised, although I shouldn't be after 2 terms of Bush, that there are so many stupid people in this country. Toss them a slogan, they drool. Too dumb to see what they did to this country the past 7 years, now they want to put the same air bag in the Whitehouse with a differnt tag.

Oh, he said "change" and he means it. He has the record to prove it! Give me a break. Grow up and grow a brain that can think.

Posted by: pansycritter | February 16, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

hikya --

No, that's not what Obama said, I have it on Tivo. I'm sure the Republicans do too.

He said he convene meetings with the insurance companies, etc, and put it all on CSPAN to figure out what to do about health care.

Like Bush, Obama doens't do very well thinking on his feet.

Vote for Hillary Clinton

She can hire Obama's speechwriter.

He can't suddenly develop an ability to think deeply about policy.

Hillary knows what she's doing.

Obama's an empty suit.

Take away his cue cards and he's got nothing interesting to say.

Just like Bush!

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

How come every time I read an excessively negative comment, it's coming from a supporter of Senator Obama? It doesn't matter whether I'm reading comments for this article or any other. They really are capable of some of the meanest statements, all in the name of "playing fair."

Posted by: nickwagner100 | February 16, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Um, Obama is not asking for his own TV show. As you know, when a bill is considered by Congress, they engage in something called floor debates, which are essentially speeches congress people make in support of or against a particular bill. These are often aired on CSPAN. What BO was saying was that when the healthcare bill is being debated in Congress, those debates and accompanying procedures should be made public. Hence his push for transparency Government, which by the way, is what he means by change.

Posted by: hikaya | February 16, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

to make a general assumption that someone will not vote for someone based on race...is as closed minded and bigoted as what you are suggesting.
Even if you're writing this comment for shock value..it's really tasteless

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 09:07 AM

The one thing I have noticed in this race for the white house:

1. It is ok NOT to vote for a women because she is a women.

2. It is ok TO vote for a women because you are a women.

3. It is ok TO vote for an african american, because you are an african american.

4. It is NOT OK to for a candiate just because they are an african american.

I have noticed this, my spouse and children have notice it, it is not right. Everyone should be making their decision on who fits their political views best, wheather that be a women, a cacuasion, or an african american. I would realy hope that the American public is able to see past what a person looks like on the outside, and judge from the inside.

Posted by: rose48809 | February 16, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

You Repubs and Obamites blow my mind. You would think Hillary has been convicted of every crime on the book. The only thing you know about her is what the media, other Repubs, or Obamites have told you over and over. A post earlier today suggests that if you folks are told a circle is a square often enough you will believe its a square. A number of posts have asked you folks to list all the things she has done illegal. No takers? Why? One post today even suggested her running for president was illegal. My good God. How dumb can one be. Come on, list all her sins. Such hate should give you ample sins to list. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 16, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

As a student of political science, I am intrigued by the present democratic race like no other. To me, this race should have much more to it than making a choice between a first ever women and first ever African-American vying for the office of the President of the US. Domestically, the impact of this election shall be seen in the transcendental dynamics that speaks of irrelevance of race and gender on the one hand and the potential of adding another dynamic to the US politics, i.e. 'inclusivity' on the other. Related to it would then be the question of continuity and persistence of these acquired traits that are desired and cherished by most if not all people who believe in democracy. The question for the American voter would thus be; who is best suited for keeping this move towards inclusion of people's voice in the government structure and policies.


In the post-9/11, post-Iraq invasion world, equally important aspect of this election is the impact it will bring on the way US deals with a fragmented and highly polarized world. For those who think American dominance based on its military supremacy will carry the day for the country needs to vacuum clean the abode where once their brains used to reside. Five years into a brutal and seemingly unending conflict is more than enough to jolt any sane mind out of its slumber. The choice for anyone voting shall take into consideration the question as to who is more capable of 'connecting' as against 'confronting' the world on issues of concerns and interests of the country as well as ones that the country shares with the world.


Here, it seems that twice as many people have showed their interest in the democratic candidates than in Republicans. However, it is not as easy a choice within the two candidates battling it out on the democratic side. IN the face of tremendous problems at hand, some think its experience, while others say judgment. With not much of daylight between the philosophical orientations of the two candidates, the choice becomes even harder to make because the 'vision' emanating from the same philosophical fountain tends to remain similar in most cases. The defining value of leadership thus revolves around the important aspect of 'character' which can be translated as proven capacity to stick to 'principles' as against expediency. Here, both sides have blamed each other for inconsistencies leaving people to rely on their instincts and emotional attachments, liking or disliking. However, there is one more measure that can be more rational which has been ignored or not given much weight when judging character as a value, i.e. to stay positive when the chips are down as against a situation where it is easy to claim high moral ground. You all have your chance to see this aspect of the two contenders' personalities these days. This is the necessary reading into the future decisions and dealings of these candidates when not many will be looking.

Posted by: sahibzada77 | February 16, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Absolute 0 --

Both Kelvin and I think you're a total idiot.

Why don't you take a swim in some nice liquid helium II...

Its not 0k, but its close...

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

There have been plenty of debates; there will be more....Hillary is desperate and will say and do anything at this point....it is the Clinton way of life...watch for another "Moist moment" in the next couple of weeks....sympathy seems to work for her.

To those who wrote that the people of Wisconsin are racist; that is not true, but the polls will tell us next week. The reasons Hillary will not win in Wisconsin: 1) Milwaukee (38% Black) & Madison (lots-o-young people)2) Obama's organization in Illinois is only a 90 minute drive away; they will be there in force to keep the momentum going, 3) Obama is not John Kerry; he will not be "swift-boated" and his rebuttals are right on target and present positive differences between the candidates.

The more I hear Hillary, the less I can stand her and her advisors...maybe one day she will enjoy being senate majority leader!

Posted by: BGreat_in2008 | February 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Enough already! It's about time Obama is brought down to the real world. I heard him cried all the time about change. Change for what? To be a third world country like Kenya where they are killing each other over elections? Change to for what purpose/ What can he do as a President. it's just about time someone ask the question, what do you mean by change? I love this country very much and I will hate for it to descend into another third world of change and chaos.
I understand that a lot of kids especially white kids are bored and seek to upturn things around but what they should know is that for those of us who has seen the world, what Obama is promising is not change but chaos.
Only Hillary have the experience to deliver true change........Obama is all talk no action!

Posted by: barajo | February 16, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

The NY Post is reporting that a recont is taking place in New York after it was noticed that a number of areas showed zero (0) votes for Obama. Now I know that Bill has his office in Harlem (after he tried to screw the taxpayers by setting up an office in Manhatten that far exceeded in cost any other ex-President, but why didn't anyone question until now how Obama could get NO votes in areas of Harlem???

Posted by: dyork | February 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Harold Ickes, Clinton's Super-delegate wrangler put out an extraordinary piece of "Doublethink" this morning on a conference call with reporters.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/doublethink-with-harold-ickes/

Posted by: Trumbull | February 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

There are two basic reasons to limit the debates.

1.Hillary is known by every American. Obama is not. So actually meeting people on the street is crucial for him...much more real political impact than another TV experience.

2. 2 more debates are planned. 18 have already been held. People need to do a bit more internet work reading their positions. They is little difference in their policies, so debates are of little practical value.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I really like Hillary's second ad in response to Obama's ad (which is good too). I don't think that Obama's ad is as close to the truth as Hillary's concerning universal health care coverage. From my understanding his doesn't cover everyone. However, I also am under the impression that his covers 4.3K per person, while Hillary's cost is 2.7K per person. The costs of the programs from my understanding is about the same for both.

I think Obama should debate more. (I am a Hillary supporter) What is wrong with more one on one debates? It can only do good for my democratic party. I also hope Obama and Hillary are able to run on the same ticket as both have enthusiastic bases.

Posted by: TaricHall | February 16, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I think she favors running her distortions during those hollywood tabloid shows.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel jsonline.com, reports that Clinton has spent $40K in WI on advertising, so are her ads for youtube and reporters or are they for viewers of television in WI?

I live in WI and while I don't watch much network TV, I've only seen Obama ads.

Posted by: caribis | February 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

but Absolute...
charity is a GOOD thing!
LOL.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112:
quote:
Hillary could have been one of the most impressive persons of our time...but she sold her soul to ambition the day after her tea and cookies retort.
:end quote

I think you are being very charitable.
She was campaign supporter of Barry Goldwater around the time he was against the Civil Rights. Now she has the nerve to talk about how moved she was by Martin L. King's speech. She is a political phony, who lacks good judgment. She lacked it then, and she lacks it now.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive people of our time."

Hillary could have been one of the most impressive persons of our time...but she sold her soul to ambition the day after her tea and cookies retort.

On that day she stuffed the real Hillary inside and became whomever the American populace wanted...her giving into the temptation of ambition destroyed her authenticity.

Her days are over.

Barak is the only authentic person running. Imperfect? Yes. But authentic.

That you are truly a supporter of Hillary saddens me because you seem blissfully unaware of how much your words damage her already strained credibility. But we are often blind to our excesses. Forgivable.

---------
GREAT post, wpost4112. (And so TRUE.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

sv,

Actually, the sign on name is Absolute_0-K. Although you are such a 'heavy reader', sv you probably do not have a clue what it means.

Go ahead and show everyone how witty you are and how much you resort to childish arguments in your posts when the facts fail you.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

And, if not, which track does she choose? The positive? The contrast/negative? Or something sort of hybrid?
--------------------
Hillary is on the Dukakis track: weak, inept, politically tone-deaf LOSER.

The last thing the Democrats need is another Dukakis.

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

sv posted...
quote:
He freely admits he was a drug addict.
:end quote

Once again, give one credible reference in which Obama said he was a "drug addict". Do you know what "addict" means? Read up on it reader and get back to me when you have something of substance to say...

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

My favored candidate now is McCain. What I don't understand is how Hillary can expect the voters to be so gullible... Bill said he consulted her on every major decision. She claims experience. Yet, she criticizes the past, saying things were done wrong.... So, if she had so much influence in the past, why didn't she get things right. She claims she can pass Health Care legislation now; she could not do it when her Bill was president. I don't see why she claims to be able to do it now. All she has is an idea, and she can't sign ideal legislation....she, if elected, could only sign legislation that the Congress sends to her. And, I don't see Congress passing any big spending bills.

Posted by: ArmyVet | February 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: svreader

quote:
Obama = DEFEAT FOR DEMOCRATS
:end quote

That's funny, did I just post a quote with reference stating that Republicans would rather face Hillary because they like their chances against her better?

Here it is again in case you missed it the first time:
Say a Prayer for Hillary
Hillary Clinton has earned the vocal disapproval of the liberal elite; if she wins the nomination, she will be forced to court the party's angry-Left base at a time when she would be better served by reaching out to the center; she has used Bill as an obvious crutch, weakening her own image; and her feminist allies have made it clear they will do all they can to define her candidacy as an exercise in vintage 1970s-style feminism. For Republicans, the choice is clear: Go Hillary! By Richard Lowry & Kate O'Beirne

Source:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAwODAyMjU=


He freely admits he was a drug addict.

Do we want another untreated addict in the whitehouse?


Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I looked at Obama's ad again and, while there is some negative "Hillary doesn't", the ad doesn't feel negative to me because, first, it focuses on Obama (no unflattering photos of his competitor) and the music is positive/up after the beginning. So there is some "contrast" but it ends on a positive rather than a negative note.

Posted by: ernstpete | February 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

sveader wrote:
quote: No. According to Obama, he wants his own program on CSPAN. :end quote

His own program huh? You have a reference on that? All I recall him suggesting is that CSPAN could help implement more transparency in Federal Government ear-marks. You know, the kind of pork that Clinton is so good at getting in return for political favors?

Seriously, do you have a real, credible reference? I'd like to read a balance account if it wasn't what I just cited.


quote: He doesn't know what to do about health care so he wants to do a TV program.
:end quote

There you go with the health care talking point again.

Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's secretary of labor and the head of Clinton's economic transition team has the following to say about the Health Care Proposal Debate:

Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance -- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated -- that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html

quote:
I always enjoy listening to his answers in debates.
:end quote

You mind is so closed that I doubt you would hear anything other than the negative propaganda coming out of Hillary's Campaign.

quote:
I don't know how he ever got through law school.
:end quote:

1) Obama graduated in the top 1% of his class at Harvard Law school with a major in Constitutional Law. (Hillary graduated in the middle of her class)

2) Obama was elected President of the Havard Law Review (a very great honor). (Hillary has no honors that come even close to matching this on her resume).

Anything else?....please make it substantive and reality based this time

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Common sense, people: if he had been so in the pocket of Exelon, would he have written that good, strong, original bill in the first place?!?!? These are the HRC distortions that seem to be the only way she can win a campaign.

Posted by: faith | February 16, 2008 05:18 PM

______________________________________

Common sense indeed. He only started receiving donations AFTER he put forth legislation- Ok, now I get it.

So writes bill- meets with Exelon (cause he is a uniter) waters down bill- gets co-sponsor. Waters down bill more and more- get donors larger and larger. I believe it is you who needs to use a little common sense.

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

as for a pro hillary website- you bet it is. It also contains facts- links to opensecrets.org the new york times piece- you know- all the information the obama folks don't like to discuss.

Posted by: darlamc | February 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

These ads remind me of those made by Mitt Romney's team to attack Huckabee and McCain. They have the same sort of rhythm and I personally find them annoying.

Also, she's making out like Obama's Wisconsin ad was negative. Which doesn't make sense because Obama's ad just began with a response to her ad attacking him for not wanting to debate, stating that he has agreed to 18 debates with two more planned. Then the ad quickly moves to a positive Obama ad.

Posted by: ernstpete | February 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for people to start finding out who the real Obama really is.

Its almost worth losing the general election to the Republicans.

He certainly will never get my vote.

I'm a loyal Democrat, but I'm an American even before I'm a Democrat.

Obama = DEFEAT FOR DEMOCRATS

Even the most partisan Democrat will put "principles before personalities"

By the way, that's another huge group that will never vote for Obama, according to what a friend of mine in it has said.

Does the term "Dry Drunk" mean anything.

That's what Bush is.

When was the last time Obama went to an AA meeting?

He freely admits he was a drug addict.

Do we want another untreated addict in the whitehouse?


Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"Billary needs to shave her head and prove she doesn't have "666" tatooed on it!"

thesteenfamily | February 16, 2008 05:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, that's upping the ante way up!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I just checked out politicalamnesia website. This is obviously a pro-HIllary site and can't be taken as seriously.

2001? When everyone gave the new president the benefit of the doubt? That's the best you can do? Oh, please.

Posted by: faith | February 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

absolute 0 --

What a fitting name you have.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: svreader

quote: If I can get even one person to see past Obama's "reality distortion field", its worth the effort. :end quote

Wow! 'reality distortion field' Didn't know Senator Obama had the power to actually distort reality! Does he criss-cross the Country traveling at Warp speed too?

quote: Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive people of our time. :end quote

Wow again! She certainly has impressed you. It's almost like you two have bonded in some way...does she know how you feel about her? If not, you should send e-mail to her and let her know, really.

quote: The fact that people think a salesman like Obama could even be considered to be in the same mental league with her never ceases to amaze me. :end quote

Judging from the way you fawn over Clinton it is obvious that you are easily amazed. You talk about Obama supporters being star struck and then you demonstrate the trait in yourself. You're a lot of fun.

quote: The fact that some people still believe in Obama after seeing his poor performance in debates: end quote

Time Magazine rated one of his debate performances an A- to Hillary's and Edward's B+. Guess the folks at Time are not as smart as you, huh? Just because they have correspondents whose job is reporting on politics probably means nothing to you...

quote:
shows how strongly they hold onto their savior complex and how deeply in denial they are about how bad he would be at the actual job of being president.
:end quote

You're just so all knowing and all seeing sv...how did you get to be an expert on everything? So conversant with Clinton Buzz Words like "No Debate", "Denial", "Cult"...boy you sure are hitting all the negative-spin angles! Do you stay up at night reading her lastest campaign talking-point releases? Being that she is 'one of the most impressive people of our time' and all....chuckles...I didn't realize times were that bad.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"Um...Hillary supported the legislation when it had teeth. By the time your guy got done with it- it was toothless and watered down. And the little people...well, they got pushed aside for the big people who could give big checks. You are carry water for a guy who does not deserve it. You should check the facts."

Perhaps you should check the facts and not from a dishonest website: Clinton signed on AFTER the bill had been watered down.

And while we're talking about facts, it was Obama who brought this issue up IN THE FIRST PLACE. No one else, certainly not HRC, cared about nuclear waste water. The bill got watered down to get it out of Inhoufe's committee -- he wrote this bill when the Republicans were in control. He wanted some legislation to get to the floor to deal with this problem.

Common sense, people: if he had been so in the pocket of Exelon, would he have written that good, strong, original bill in the first place?!?!? These are the HRC distortions that seem to be the only way she can win a campaign.

Posted by: faith | February 16, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

Don't hate the playa...hate the game!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Billary needs to shave her head and prove she doesn't have "666" tatooed on it!

Posted by: thesteenfamily | February 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Absolute0 --

No. According to Obama, he wants his own program on CSPAN.

He doesn't know what to do about health care so he wants to do a TV program.

I always enjoy listening to his answers in debates.

They're universally horrible and virtually content-free.

I don't know how he ever got through law school.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Faith:

"I think Obama should agree to a new debate when Hillary releases her tax returns, her papers from her years as First Lady that are held in the Clinton Library (you know -- all her "years of experience"), and the list of donors to the Clinton Library and his foundation. "
-------------------------
What a great idea! When she doesn't everyone will be able to see the true face of Clintonian machine.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Faith:

"I think Obama should agree to a new debate when Hillary releases her tax returns, her papers from her years as First Lady that are held in the Clinton Library (you know -- all her "years of experience"), and the list of donors to the Clinton Library and his foundation. "
-------------------------
What a great idea! When she doesn't everyone will be able to see the true face of Clintonian machine.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

ON THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN BUS -- Harold Ickes, one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's senior advisors, announced the campaign's "long view" in a conference call this morning.

Bottom line: Say hello Puerto Rico.

"We are going to fight all the way to the convention," Ickes said.

Ickes, a veteran of the Clinton White House and a central figure in Clinton's 2000 Senate race, told reporters that the campaign expects Clinton "will able to hold her own in Wisconsin" and win Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. "We think the demographics of Pennsylvania very much suits her candidacy," he said. "By the end of this process by the 7th of June, when Puerto Rico votes, she will be neck and neck with Mr. Obama . . . Then she will wrap up the nomination."

What's that Monty Python song? Always look on the bright side of life...

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama should agree to a new debate when Hillary releases her tax returns, her papers from her years as First Lady that are held in the Clinton Library (you know -- all her "years of experience"), and the list of donors to the Clinton Library and his foundation. Is she "afraid to answer questions?" Obviously. I've had enough secrecy in the White HOuse to last me a lifetime.

Posted by: faith | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I'll take March 10th

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you claudialong. The Republican are loving this. Let us tear into each other. All this venom. All this chaos.

Everyone should take a look at the news programs such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox - they are getting high ratings and will not stop. After the primaries, they will go after whoever is on top. Bush is beaten down so badly now they need fresh meat. Is the news cycle baby.

At this point, I hope the Republicans win to teach us all a lesson. THE MORE YOU GUYS TALK THE MORE HATE IT GENERATES. GO FOR IT GUYS! KEEP TALKING!

Posted by: peterofmd | February 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I bet a good percentage of those who are teat-mongering on the Shrillary train, were also the ones who helped push Bush onto the victory stage.

They got it wrong before, and I bet you, they will get it wrong again.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I bet a good percentage of those who are teat-mongering on the Shrillary train, were also the ones who helped push bush onto the victory stage.

They got it wrong before, and I bet you, they will get it wrong again.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm ready for the Fix Office Pool on guessing the day Hillary concedes. I'm taking March 7.

Posted by: optimyst | February 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary does best in states with a large working class and lots of Hispanics. Obama does best in states with lots of yuppies and blacks. I think that makes Wisconsin a more likely win for Hillary.
I don't like Obama's people trying to get blacks to vote race. How would they feel if we went and told all the women to vote gender? Obama's surrogates cried mightily at the slightest hint that his "dream" might be unrealistic.
Whites should be outraged at the racism implied in his pressure on the super delegates to vote their race.

Posted by: bghgh | February 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive people of our time."

Hillary could have been one of the most impressive persons of our time...but she sold her soul to ambition the day after her tea and cookies retort.

On that day she stuffed the real Hillary inside and became whomever the American populace wanted...her giving into the temptation of ambition destroyed her authenticity.

Her days are over.

Barak is the only authentic person running. Imperfect? Yes. But authentic.

That you are truly a supporter of Hillary saddens me because you seem blissfully unaware of how much your words damage her already strained credibility. But we are often blind to our excesses. Forgivable.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to tell the toxic hag that her dirty tricks are making a lot of people angry. Other than the hysterical "hagetes" of NOW, there aren't many people who aren't just turned off of her by this, they view any Democrat that supports her in a very bad light.The message needs to be loud and clear, there are A LOT of us who will vote for Obama that will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. We will, gladly or grudgeonly, vote for McCain. We cannot afford another Bush corporate hack that is so beholden to corporations as are the Clinton's.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

What's so insidious about the second ad -- I give her credit politically for this -- she lists things she will do that are identical to what Obama will do. There is no difference between them on those middle class issues. But she grabbed it and ran with it. Political savvy, to be sure. Obama needs to do more of this. She may tighten this race considerably and blunt some of the momentum. But this is when we find out what he's made of.

All that being said, she has still run a negative campaign, if not so much swift-boating type attacks, but an attack on Obama's ability to truly get through to a majority of American people and get some of these policies implemented. She is divisive and may be a "fighter", but she will fight distracting battles instead of being able able to focus on what's important. Winning truly is everything to the Clintons, and the scorched earth just doesn't matter to them. It upsets me deeply.

Posted by: faith | February 16, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

sv...
quote:Obama came up with his idiotic "Obama TV" idea during the debate.

For a lawyer, he doens't seem to think on his feet very well...:end quote

Oh, you must be referring to BarakTV on his campaign website. What is wrong with that?
Internet is multimedia. I suppose he could go on the cheap with YouTube.

As far as lawyers go, Hillary had to move to Arkansas to pass the Bar exam after failing it twice. Do you really want to compare law resumes?

I don't think you do, but I could be wrong....

Posted by: svreader

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I thought this election was going to be a continuation of every election since '92 (congressional and presidential), which was won by the party that most effectively demonized the other party.

I think Americans in general are tired of that, which is why both parties are moving toward choices other than the designated pit bulls (in my opinion HRC and Rudy).

Most analysts have noted that Obama and Hillary are fairly close on the issues. And unless Hillary's Democratic insiders sit out the general election, Obama will have access to all the same resources against the Republican attack machine.

But I don't know if it will come to that. I get a real sense that the country is ready for a different dialogue. And I think Iraq has a lot to do with it. After 9/11, everything was black and white, and Iraq was the ultimate wedge issue. Now, most Americans realize that while Iraq was probably a mistake, but we're responsible for staying at least until the government is stable. That means most people's positions have had to evolve since the beginning of the war. It also means that the answer for solving Iraq (and many other issues) really isn't always black or white.

So which candidate has the ability to think about issues in a new way and potentially come up with new solutions? One who was defined by the partisan battles of the last 20 years, or someone else?

Whomever goes against McCain will have the advantage of a Republican party at war with itself. Does the party stand for the core Reagan conservative coalition, or for something more moderate. It's similar to the Democratic party dilemma in the 60s with the legacy of FDR.

I guess the point is that this election looks and feels different than any one since probably '68. HRC represents the establishment ... her strongest argument seems to be "it's our turn, and I've paid my dues". I don't think people are responding to that.

Posted by: tgaylord1999 | February 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

zien -- you are hereby awarded the Most Totally Idiotic Post of the Day.

And in your case it is accompanied by the Possibly the Most Stupid Person in the World award.

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Changes
1. Increase Tax to give money to people who do not want to work
2. Withdrawing from Iraq and let Iran controlling the flow of oil.
3. Disbanding NAPTA then the World Economy in trouble
Zien106

Posted by: zien106 | February 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Changes
1. Increase Tax to give money to people who do not want to work
2. Withdrawing from Iraq and let Iran controlling the flow of oil.
3. Disbanding NAPTA then the World Economy in trouble

Posted by: zien106 | February 16, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

how delightful [not] to watch the democratic party perform a dinner theatre production of Lord of the Flies... this demonization of each other has got to stop folks, or we are going to lose to a guy who will be, essentially, anotehr 4 years of Bush.

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

wpost --

If I can get even one person to see past Obama's "reality distortion field", its worth the effort.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most impressive people of our time.

The fact that people think a salesman like Obama could even be considered to be in the same mental league with her never ceases to amaze me.

The fact that some people still believe in Obama after seeing his poor performance in debates shows how strongly they hold onto their savior complex and how deeply in denial they are about how bad he would be at the actual job of being president.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

kb: All the states like California and New York that went for Hillary will ALWAYS go Democratic. Obama opens the door to wins in states like Missouri and Colorado that have lots of Independent voters who will -never in a million years- go for Hillary over McCain. Get a clue. And I guess we should just assume that younger voters are all "stupid and ignorant" because they gravitate towards Obama. I really think the "cult" of calcified crusty old Dems who somehow find comfort in returning to the Clinton days needs to start realizing that the polls are right- if she gets the nomination McCain is going to be the next President.

All your interesting theories about whites voting for Obama to purge themselves of "guilt" are the biggest bunch of hooey I have seen.

Posted by: marSF | February 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kb | February 16, 2008 04:10 PM

In reference to the black electorate:

"They don't seem to care what their positions are, or even who the candidates are. They just want to enmasse go for a candidate just because of his color. If that is not racism, I don't know what is?"


Ahhh...another us versus them person.

Join the future!

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I love svreader. For every post he/she writes, Obama gets 5 new converts.

Now that's poetic justice.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

'Don't be a victim of "The Mendacity of Hype"'


I practice that every time I resist the urge to read your posts.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I hope the African-American population votes for Obama 100%. Ain't no racism in that...just good smarts in picking the best candidate.

Time that someone finish the work of Abe and MLK...and effect true equality for all Americans.

How thrilling it's a man born of a white Kansas women and a black man from Kenya.

What a marvelous country we live in.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

absolute0 --

Obama came up with his idiotic "Obama TV" idea during the debate.

For a lawyer, he doens't seem to think on his feet very well...

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Both Obama and Bush are "world-class" salesmen.

Both of them are shameless self-promoters who stretch the truth to the point of breaking it.

Obama, for example, was never a "law professor" but only a glorified teaching assistant.

Dig into the details. The more you learn about Obama the faster you'll want to run in the other direction.

Obama is the consumate salesman.

Don't fall for it.

Don't be a victim of "The Mendacity of Hype"

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Now tell me who the terrorist enemy is again? Hint: It ain't Iraqis. Remember it was the Saudi government all along, who didn't bother to stop the Saudi 9/11 bombers either. And so why didn't we attack the SaudIs? One word -- what everythig in the middle east is about -- OIL.

"British lives on British streets" threatened by Saudi prince Bandar if UK proceeded with BAE fraud inquiry. The Guardian's investigative team David Leigh and Rob Evans, who broke the BAE/Saudi bribery/halted UK corruption inquiry story last year, have a new blockbuster, and it's bloodcurdling:

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family."

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: sv
quote: Only Clinton supporters suggest your read both web sites. :end quote

Really? There you go again. Making wild, generalized statements that you can not back up with facts.

quote: The more you look Obama's ideas and policy proposals, the more half-baked you realize they are. :end quote

Certainly, someone with an open mind like you can come up with something better than that, can't you? So what if Hillary spouts off some dollar figure to make herself sound impressive? By the time she got it through Congress, that is to say if she got it through Congress, it would be nothing like the detailed plan she's out there selling. Come on reader, Who is kidding who here?

quote:Obama runs a "cult of personality" campaign because he actually doesn't have a clue. :end quote

Yes, yes, we have all heard the "cult of personality" talking point of you Clinton supporters. Just because Hillary is lacking in personality doesn't make Obama's campaign a cult. Why don't you go look up the word instead of buying the Clinton Campaign's negative spin verbatim?


quote: Remember his "Obama TV" idea for fixing health care?

Ever Bush couldn't come up with something as stupid as that. :end quote

I do not know what you are talking about. How about some specifics or are you all talk and no facts? Isn't that what you accuse Obama and his supporters of being?
LOL

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is highly respected on both sides of the isle. Hillary is widely known as the member of the senate that has the best knowledge of the issues."

Exactly..she's great senator and should stay one. I'm sure the Republicans LOVE her for her vote to send us to war.

And I'm sure President Obama will make good use of her detailed knowledge. Visionary leaders always need the policy wonks. Team work, you know.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

If a white guy with such little substance/experience got 88% of white vote and split the black vote about even, everyone would be up in arms about the country being racist. Now, no one seems to even comment on the racist tendencies of the black electorate.

They don't seem to care what their positions are, or even who the candidates are. They just want to enmasse go for a candidate just because of his color. If that is not racism, I don't know what is. Even before the shift, all the pundits were commenting -- without judging them of course -- that the only thing holding back the black electorate from going for Obama was they were not sure if he was electable and they didn't want to throw away their vote.

I think part of the reason the whites want to vote for Obama is that they think they can wash away the past sins and won't have to take crap from the black folks any more -- once and for all. And Obama is a lot easier to swallow than someone like Jessie Jackson. And they don't even have to choose betn. misogyny and just going this once with "redemption". What a blessing.

The young crowd -- of course loves the fact that he inhaled. What more could they ask for. He is one of them! Most of them will not even pass the "citizenship test" administered to new immigrants -- like what does it take to pass a law, who is third in line of succession for presidency etc..

Also, why the heck should a Democratic candidate be decided by who won in Alabama, South Carolina, and Wyoming? When was the last time they went Democratic in the general election? Why not let the republican party pick the Democratic nominee they want to run against? This is utter idocy.

White women for Obama... you may want to read Robin Morgan's essay.. and then if you still feel sure of your choice.. by all means!

Posted by: kblgca | February 16, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The Obama rally yesterday in Milwaukee was at 10 in the morning on a weekday....and 4,000 people showed up! That is not a small turnout. My 70year old mom was there and she thought he was fantastic.

svreader: Bush was a C student, legacy admission, draft-dodging trustafarian alcoholic who ran as a fake cowboy "compassionate" born-again conservative. If you think Barack Obama bares any resemblance to that moron who can hardly put together a coherent sentence then you are seriously deluded.

Posted by: marSF | February 16, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Again, where are Hillary's tax returns???

And why is she leaving Wisconsin early?

It must be because it's a caucus. No.
Large black population? Mmm. No.
Starbuck-sipping yuppie state? Mm. No.
Oprah campaigning. Er. No.

Can't wait to hear excuse no.9854 from the Hillary camp.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are not RESPECTED by anyone!!! There is a fear of their (supposed) power. But never have they been respected. And after Bill was unable to pull much more then 50% in both of his victories, the inability of his VP to coast into the White House, and the heavy losses his wife is taking his legacy will suffer even more.

Posted by: dyork | February 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

wpost --

I did the research. That's why I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.

The most important thing I did was the check the candidates out through contacts in Washingon.

Hillary is highly respected on both sides of the isle.

Hillary is widely known as the member of the senate that has the best knowledge of the issues.

Obama is known as a "backslapper" and "gladhander"

Thanks but no thanks.

We've had enough of that the past 7 years.

Obama IS Bush.

Only the name has been changed, in order to bring in a new generation of "suckers"

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Absolute_0-K ...

No, I didn't see the other letters in the Gazette...but glad to hear it. I hope I am dead wrong and he does very well there...I'm just not wanting to excite myself. Still think it wil be close.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: svreader
quote: Do the Research. Obama IS Bush. :end quote

Yes, do the research and you'll find out that Hillary has been Bush's fool far too many times.

The Republicans *want* Hillary as the Democratic Nominee. Here is a Headline from the Conservative "National Review":

Say a Prayer for Hillary
Hillary Clinton has earned the vocal disapproval of the liberal elite; if she wins the nomination, she will be forced to court the party's angry-Left base at a time when she would be better served by reaching out to the center; she has used Bill as an obvious crutch, weakening her own image; and her feminist allies have made it clear they will do all they can to define her candidacy as an exercise in vintage 1970s-style feminism. For Republicans, the choice is clear: Go Hillary! By Richard Lowry & Kate O'Beirne

Source: http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAwODAyMjU=

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The only question left to be decided in this election is whether Obama can survive the attacks by the 527s paid for by the Republicans and corporate America.

If he can he will be President and there is nothing that McCain can do about it.

Posted by: m_tommy | February 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"You make my case for me. Bush used the exact same pitch about bringing Democrats and Republicans together when he was Governor of Texas. Instead of President of Harvard Law review, Bush was the Harvard Business MBA and ex fighter-pilot.
Do the Research.
Obama IS Bush.
Only the name has been changed, in order to pull in the Gullible."

Nonsense.

Bush accomplished no uniting in Texas, just arm-twisting. Molly Irvins wrote all about it.

He was a mediocre student at Harvard and....a "fighter pilot"?

Now THAT"S a laugh.

He may have been playing a "fighter pilot" pinball game at the local bar, but he was AWOL for the real deal.

Just do the research. It's all there.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

jimd52 | February 16, 2008 03:25 PM

Sorta "factually accurate but factually distorted" kinda thing?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

She claims she has all this experience, but at what? Talking.

She claims she has all the answers, but at what? Questions she asks.

Her big strategy is "vote for me because I'm a woman." Is that a qualification? Not to me.

Posted by: michael4 | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

You have to wonder how they have the ability to make statements like this when they expected to be handed the presidency almost beofre they started running!!!

Harold Ickes, a top adviser and delegate strategist to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, accused Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday of trying to short-circuit the party's presidential nominating process with a "rush to judgment" when he has momentum and Clinton is struggling.

Posted by: dyork | February 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Absolute-0

Only Clinton supporters suggest your read both web sites.

What does that tell you about the two candidates?

The more you look Obama's ideas and policy proposals, the more half-baked you realize they are.

Obama runs a "cult of personality" campaign because he actually doesn't have a clue.

Remember his "Obama TV" idea for fixing health care?

Ever Bush couldn't come up with something as stupid as that.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

While we have a woman running for president, here is what is happening to women in one of our 'allies' in the middle east. Women are treated worse in Saudi Arabia than possibly anyplace else in the world, but all Bush does is kiss King Abdullah every time he sees him.

Which politician now running will call the Saudis to account for their 15th century behavior?

"Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft.

In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read.

Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent."

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: svreader
"But wpost, don't worry, Obama may still fool enough people with weak minds into becoming "star-struck" "true-believers" to get elected.

Bush did."

Spoken like a true Clinton supporter. Yes, America is filled with weak-minded fools. Only Clinton supporters know all and see all. LOL

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I see a post on some pretty major accomplishments of Mr. Obama where he 1. led the liberal & convervative titans at Harvard in some earth shaking decisons 2. then in Illinois convservative dominated legislature again was able to forge this monumentous passage of a citizens protection bill in police interviews. How did I miss these mega events being chronicled in Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today???

Posted by: dstrouse | February 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

wpost --

Hopefully people will realize that without his tele-promoter Obama's just an empty suit.

I can't wait for the debate.

But wpost, don't worry, Obama may still fool enough people with weak minds into becoming "star-struck" "true-believers" to get elected.

Bush did.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: wpost4112
quote: Now, if the Green Bay Gazette endorsed Barack, I'd feel better about his chances. As it is, there are two political letters to the editor in today's Gazette and they are both for Clinton. Not a good sign. :end quote

Yes, but did you read all of the negative reader comments against Hillary. There were several positives for Obama although there were only about one page of them.

quote: Only 4500 showed up at the GreenBay rally. Again, not the 20,000 that showed up at Madison. :end quote

According to the Gazette the facility where the rally was held (The Kress Events Center) only has a capacity of 4500-4700...meaning Obama filled the rally to capacity albeit slowly.

I think Obama will have a good shot at winning, if not he should still get a good share of delegates .

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

For what it is worth,
Gallup poll now shows Obama up 49 to Hillary's 42 nationwide. Guess that negative shtick ain't working so well.

But we still have the debates to come.

It's not over til it's over.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

wpost --

You make my case for me. Bush used the exact same pitch about bringing Democrats and Republicans together when he was Governor of Texas. Instead of President of Harvard Law review, Bush was the Harvard Business MBA and ex fighter-pilot.

Do the Research.

Obama IS Bush.

Only the name has been changed, in order to pull in the Gullible.

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary would try this lame crap. This shows a candidate that doesn't understand the political climate and why she isn't faring better.

I hope voters don't fall for this stuff in TX and OH, (I'm positive that they won't in WI - they're smarter). Hey, one electorate chose Bush as governor, the other elected him to president.

Posted by: fbutler1 | February 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"George Bush made the same claim about bringing parties together.
How's that working out for you, Obama supporters?
Why should anyone with working neurons believe a word he or you say?"

That's easy.

George Bush mouthed the words but had absolutely no history to back them up. As in high school, so in life...he was/is a cheerleader masquerading as a quarterback.

Barak on the other hand has the goods. When he was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, he brought some of the best and most combatative conservative and liberal minds together and always led them to agree to a compromise solution.

In the heavily conservative Illinois Senate and under a Republican governor he brokered a very important piece of legislation protecting the rights of citizens during police interviews.

He's got the ACTION behind the words. Something Georgie never did.

With Barak, we've got a real quarterback, or more appropriately, shooting guard.

Do the research.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

The least interesting thing about this story is the content of the ads. The most interesting is the investment they are making in WI. A few days ago it looked like they were ceding WI to Obama and camping out in TX but now they are pouring money and organizers in.

I think it's a good decision for the campaign. If they fall another 25 pledged delegates behind and get shellacked again, it makes for a brutal two weeks of free media. If they make it close or win, they can try to make the campaign about their issues.

The danger of course is: if they pour a lot of money and effort in and lose by 5-10 points, it makes the next few weeks even worse. But you can't win if you don't try.

And the fact is, the end is not far away, and even if the campaign doesn't have much money, it should "smoke 'em, if it's got 'em."

Posted by: stpaulsage | February 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes legislation or candidates for public office."

That is as close to lying without uttering a technical falsehood as you can come. Judicial Watch is an extreme right-wing organization with a decided ideological agenda.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

In leadership roles it is inevitable that in leading many of those who most oppose you will in time convert that to dislike if your position prevails. Persons such as Mr. Obama professing such a vast history of social and economic successes and yet having developed no strong opponents has to mean either he is a Prophet or maybe his accomplishments are not so vast after all.

Posted by: dstrouse | February 16, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"wHY DONT YOU HAVE ThE GUTS TO JUST ADMIT THE FACT THAT YOU JUST DISLIKE HER."

Ok, I dislike Hillary very strongly.

There, does that make you happy?

I do have some reasons behind my dislike...

Posted by: anonthistime | February 16, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

George Bush made the same claim about bringing parties together.

How's that working out for you, Obama supporters?

Why should anyone with working neurons believe a word he or you say?

Posted by: svreader | February 16, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I like the Clintons but Clinton II would be a massive, non-stop scandal in light of Bill's "post-Presidency."

The Bush 43 presidency (a non-stop Oedipal drama) and HRC's campaign suggest that we need to amplify the 22nd Amendment. Not only should any President be limited to two terms, but no sibling, child or spouse of a former Prsident should be permitted to run.

Posted by: mnjam | February 16, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Was was that banner behind Hillary at her Florida rally??

Oh yeah, "Mission Accomplished!"

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Somebody commented that the press fawns over Obama but will criticize Clinton if she wears white slacks after Labor Day. I'm not the press, but you'll get no such Clinton criticism from me. Anything she can do to avoid exposing the anatomical anomaly of legs which connect to feet without the intervention of ankles is a public service.

Posted by: officermancuso | February 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton camp's claims of victory being just around the corner remind of the story told by John Kenneth Galbraith of the debriefing of the German Albert Speer at the close of World War II.

How was it, Galbraith asked, that Speer knew his Germans were losing?

It was, Speer replied, because the glorious victories of the Fatherland were growing ever closer to Berlin.

The Big "O" has got the Big Mo !!!

Go Obama !!!

MARTIN EDWIN 'MICK' ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"To me, regretfully, Sen. Obama's rhetoric is a frightening face of the past. As a Soviet Russia escapee 30 year ago I still remember the demagogic speeches that we were forced to listen to and the pseudo-enthusiastic crowd. Now it seems a deja vu to me. Except that the crowd is genially enthusiastic as they buy into to the demagogic speeches. I just hope that I am wrong and you are all right, but be careful what you buy into."

Well, Ana, it's a legitimate concern.
I too worry that many will expect some golden age paradise...not the slow steady work-a-day world of change Barak is talking about.

And can Barak deliver...will he actually accomplish things?

It's a legit concern. Mass movements can be very illusory and destructive. But they can also be positive and creative, if channeled properly.

Barak's past history of effecting real change during his community organizing in Chicago...his accomplishments at the Harvard Law Review and in the Illinois Senate when when he actually did bring opposing forces together...and his personal integrity....they all speak to the high probability that he can lead us to a different kind of political discourse and real political change.

Russia has a very violent and coersive history. I can imagine your fears. But stick around...we do things a little different here. Not all of us, but enough to make a difference.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

While Senator Clinton, in desperation, is running false attack advertisements, Senator Obama is out meeting the people. A warm handshake, an exchange of smiles, and even a hug, are much better than cold advertisements.

I've listened to Senator Obama's stump speeches. They are one part hope and optimism and one part policy statement. There is no lack of substance.

Senator Clinton has simply substituted one race coded word for another. Lack of experience is now lack of substance.

I voted for Senator Obama here in the New Mexico caucus. I will vote for him if he is on the ballot this November. If he is not on the ballot, I will write in his name.

GO OBAMA

Posted by: pbarnett52 | February 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Negativity is the only card let in the Clintons bags of trick. This couple is a disgrace, the way they've run their campaign in this election with lies and outright fabrication is just beneath contempt. And to think I once supported this power hungry couple. This election as revealed the Clintons to be nothing more than cheap ass politicians who would say and do whatever it takes to win even if that means destroying the whole democratic party. This couple isn't going away lightly, they're determined to fight to the bitter end.

Posted by: lumi21us | February 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

HOUSTON CHRONICLE ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA ...

For Obama
The Chronicle endorses the senator from Illinois for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.

Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party. ...

Those who have viewed the numerous campaign debates know there's not much to separate Obama from his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. ...

However, there is a decisive difference. Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized. ...

MARTIN EDWIN 'MICK' ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

To all you Hillary Haters.
You continue to make un substaniated claims of so much illegalalities on her part.
Please answer for me please? In what court of law was the woman ever found guilty of any crime/
wHY DONT YOU HAVE ThE GUTS TO JUST ADMIT THE FACT THAT YOU JUST DISLIKE HER.
We are a Democratic country and all are equal and no one to my knowledge has ever been charged guilty of a crime unless 1. tried by a jury of our peers and 2 found guilty in a court of law.
If I thought like you people I guess is ok for me to tell you people Obama is a liar, a thief and a mass murderer.He just hasnt been found guilty yet!!!!!!

Posted by: raisa_dudu | February 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

To all you Hillary Haters.
You continue to make un substaniated claims of so much illegalalities on her part.
Please answer for me please? In what court of law was the woman ever found guilty of any crime?
wHY DONT YOU HAVE ThE GUTS TO JUST ADMIT THE FACT THAT YOU JUST DISLIKE HER.
We are a Democratic country and all are equal and no one to my knowledge has ever been charged guilty of a crime unless 1. tried by a jury of our peers and 2 found guilty in a court of law.
If I thought like you people I guess is ok for me to tell you people Obama is a liar, a thief and a mass murderer.He just hasnt been found guilty yet!!!!!!

Posted by: raisa_dudu | February 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel endorses Obama, Clinton cuts back schedule in Wisconsin

"Obama: Change for the good":

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718696

"Clinton scales back campaign schedule here":

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=2/16/2008&id=35716

Posted by: sbeale58 | February 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are rolling out their Nixonesque mean machine which they used to cover up all their many past doings.


If Obama gets too far ahead the Clintons may call the boys who took care of Foster for them.

Posted by: msmithnv | February 16, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Video ALERT:

Hillary during high school:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

To me, regretfully, Sen. Obama's rhetoric is a frightening face of the past. As a Soviet Russia escapee 30 year ago I still remember the demagogic speeches that we were forced to listen to and the pseudo-enthusiastic crowd. Now it seems a deja vu to me. Except that the crowd is genially enthusiastic as they buy into to the demagogic speeches. I just hope that I am wrong and you are all right, but be careful what you buy into.

Posted by: anna_rc_1999 | February 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I used to be a big fan of the Clinton's but at this point I am just fed up. Hillary Clinton is beginning to sound more and more shrill, and I feel she is trying to stop history for her own selfish reasons. If she is the nominee, the Republicans will be galvanized and John McCain will win.

Posted by: stswork | February 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: peterofmd | February 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 02:38 PM

Do you really want to know where all the recent Clinton cash infusion came from?

Sorry, she's not telling.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

ESR1 | February 16, 2008 11:24 AM

Read the Politico article.

Why does it seem the Clinton campaign bigwigs are as arrogant as peacocks and less than smart.

The Obama guys, on the other hand, are as sharp as razors and speaking with their feet firmly planted on the real world.

Clintonista arrogance versus Obama smarts.

The audacity of it all...

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Go home, Hillary, go home. The Democratic Party and the country will be better off with Obama. You and Bill had your chance. Your time has past. Go away.

Posted by: Bob22003 | February 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's worst problem is that her best asset - her "35 years of experience" - has already "branded" her in the eyes of most Americans.

The more we see of Hillary (whichever version of "HRC" she's selling today), the more her numbers inevitably go down because it just reminds us more and more of OUR experiences of HER.

It's ALL a classic Catch-22, Chris. And I'm sure it will be a classic in political science classrooms for decades to come.

And, whatever Mrs. Clinton's tactic-du-jour might be, I am still NOT distracted from wondering about what those closely guarded tax returns have to say. (Are you?)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Question:

Why is Hilary not releasing her tax returns??

Where is the "transparency"?

Hilary supporters??

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Should they vote for a Woman who would/could understand them better than any man ever could or loyalty to their race? The peer pressure is on folks.
-------------------------------------------
Please vote on the merits of each candidate not the gender or race or age. We (Democrats)need to field a winner. Compare and contrast Clinton and Obama and for the country's sake send the one who will beat MCain to the November finals.

Posted by: info22 | February 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I think that her expenditure in Wisconsin has more to do with the fact that ignoring the state, with similar demographics (even more favorable) to those of Ohio, would be extremely negligent. Since she probably has some more stable finances, she's going to try to close it up as much as she can without looking like she's put a ton of effort in - hence the negative ads as opposed to extensive campaigning.

Posted by: hello5 | February 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

You can get a comprehensive and timely coverage on Clinton and Obama at Line Spout. Try http://www.linespout.com/?q=clinton,obama.

Posted by: akash95131 | February 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

She still sounds like Tracy Flick in "Election". As for Wisconsin, the last poll I saw has Obama ahead 5 points.

Posted by: TomJx | February 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I realize it's burning down the house, but I will not vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. [Going back and forth on this hypothetical.]

Won't matter. Hillary is staving off a big defeat here by aderring to the advice of a Daily Kos writer: Get up to Wisconsin and fight.

She has no choice. She cannot go back into Ohio and Texas bleeding and hurt.

But my prediction: Obama by nine points, on the streghth of the college towns, the white working-class men, and the the progressives in Milwaukee and Madison.

#

Posted by: mleo2 | February 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, yesterday I was communing with Freud -he said Bill had 'subconsciously' wanted to screw up his wife's campaign - so everything from the past few months is actually part of his personal campaign against her and not against Obama. Whaddya think?"

LOL. The prevailing view is that Bill suffers from ADHD and pathological narcissism. So, on the one hand, he would hate to see Hillary have more of the spotlight than himself, but also wants desperately to get into any spotlight he can. And is chemically wired in such a way that he is unable to edit himself.

So I suppose his pathologies are in conflict.

Certainly, a flawed and tragic figure. As is Bush, but for very different reasons. Funny how they both had very domineering mothers, Bill's more in the mode of Flo from "Alice" and George's more in the mode of Beth Jarrett from Ordinary People.

So Bill's tragedy is really a tragi-comedy involving tawdry sex whereas George's tragedy is much darker, his rigid self-hate expressing itself in war.

Obama seems pretty normal in comparison. That'll be a nice change.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's ads should find a better way to target the experience issue. David Ignatius' piece in WaPo today really hits the nail on the target -- Obama makes various promises regarding the economy, but doesn't say how to pay for it with a looming recession. Obama says we need to take our time getting out of Iraq, then months later asserts that a quick withdrawal is the way to go. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502962.html
Ignatius' conclusion: These things don't completely undermine Obama's candidacy, but raise serious questions that should be addressed. Hear, hear. Let's get beyond rhetoric and talk policy.

Posted by: mawenzel1983 | February 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Could Hillary Clinton possibly be any more disenginuous? Not only could she not take a stand against the war in Iraq, she can't even take a stand on terrorism!

Listen to her speak with her own words about how we should try to "understand" terrorists and how terrorism is simply a "tool" used throughout history to achieve objectives. She talks about the terrorist group the LTTE (The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka) which has killed over 60,000 people, commited more suicide bombings than all other terrorist groups in the world combined, and is responsible for the assassination of the Prime Minister of India.

In her own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z_olqBDnxA

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8699

Could this sympathy have anything to do with the LTTE terrorist supporters fundraising for Hillary Clinton (Google: Hillary LTTE). I guess the same way Hillary Clinton could not vote "no" for the Iraq war, she's not really capable of saying that terrorism against civilians is completely unacceptable in a civilized society and that there could be no justification for acts of terrorism regardless of the "objectives."

We can do so much better with Obama without such sleazy and self-serving politics!

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's a basher just like the GOP pricks. As far as I can tell she is just talk, and hasnt delivered diddlysquat.

Posted by: paulnolan97 | February 16, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse


Clinton's "strong tone" may impress Washington Post reporters, but it doesn't impress me.

We've just had eight years of strong-tone presidency and it's all-but destroyed our country and our international standing. In this case, the strong tone has simply been the grown-up equivalent of a spoiled infant trying to bawl and shout down the rest of his kindergarten.

A strong tone certainly has its place in society, but not if you're dead wrong. The very least a good citizen can do for Hillary is to point out to her that her strong tone is no substitute for policies which are right. And it's no substitute for listening to people, which she shows little inclination to do. Just like the termite we are about to purge from the White House.


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

After weeks of the Clinton Campaign faltering, we now understand what organisational experience she got for 8 years in the White House. Her initial team is proving by their dismissal that non-professional considerations were used in hiring them. Clinton's inability to manage her campaign budget is ridiculous. On the contrary we have seen a tip of Obama's ability to put a team together and work them towards achieving goals. Indeed they are learning along the way and their experience now is momentous, while Clinton has to midway go back to the drawing board and learn from the Obama Campaign. This would likely take Obama to the white House a first and second term. Americans now know who is more experienced. her only experience in such negative ads and politicking. Fly high Obama even if you don't win the conservative Wisconsin. More victories ahead for right through to November and in 2012.

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

It's a 'Man's' world. Now it is either McCain or Obama. That's your choice. Get over it.

Posted by: faray | February 16, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yesterday I was communing with Freud -he said Bill had 'subconsciously' wanted to screw up his wife's campaign - so everything from the past few months is actually part of his personal campaign against her and not against Obama. Whaddya think?

Posted by: rupertornelius | February 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Here is nad idea for Obama:

Maggie William was the last person seen leaving Vince Foster office after he was found dead .... as per sworn testimony of secret service agent. Let is bring out Clintons (plural) in white House.

Posted by: sthorat | February 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"I have heard that Barack Obama voted in 2001 while in the Illinois Senate for a bill that restricted medical care it babies that were "accidentally" born during an abortion. If this is true do any of you Obama supporters really believe this will NOT come out during the general election? When it comes out how will you defend a candidate that supports infanticide?"

A careful reading of the bill and attendant laws will reveal that his vote had to do with problems in the bill's language concerning the constitutional definition of personhood.

Barak is a Constitutional scholar/teacher and is well aware of the far right's attempt to legally reclassify a fetus as a person and thus take away a woman's right to make choices about her body, including any fetus she may be carrying, be it through willful consent or unwillful consent, as in cases of rape.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The contest is over, isn't it? Stop spinning it out just for the next pay check, Fixy baby.

Posted by: rupertornelius | February 16, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to Obama literally everything is off the table.
The ad actually reflects the truth as the press reported. Even your rag Chris. All were talking about how Clinton hung around answering questions while Obama would not take questions. Even as biased as the media appears to be this was reported. Clinton challenged Obama to weekly debates which Obama declined to participate in. Not surprising since he generally loses ground when asked to actually state something.

It doesn't actually matter. The Obama supporters talk all about uniting, sounds like George Bush, while all the while creating huge gaps on religious and racial lines. Yes they did broach the subject first and if you bother to read his "Renewal" speech on the Senates website you will see where he supported the good Reverend and yet 2 months later he states "we have our differences". He goes with Farakahn to Libya while the country is on the terrorist state list but wants to convince everyone this is uniting or healing. BS! He has conned the black and left liberals as surely as did Kerry and McGovern and Eagleburger(sp). You want to know who runs things? Probably not because his supporters seem more like rabid attack dogs than anything else to me. But should you wish to actually learn something check out Harvard and Skull & Bones. There is a reason why the majority of our Presidents, except Clinton 1, have been there. The only one who doesn't fit is attacked and smeared unlike any other in the history of the country with basically no factual information. The power brokers cannot buy and sell the Clintons and that bothers them. Didn't you ever honestly ask yourself why a young intern would send her sperm soaked dress to her mother to store? For what reason? Bill was not a pillar of what some would call moral behavior, mostly those who think it is ok for their kids to witness thousands of murders while growing up but think it horribly wrong that the same kids would be exposed to sex in any place other that the R rated films they do not mind them seeing in the theaters and the music which condoning gang rape of their sisters. For crying out loud do you not get it. MaCain will be our next President and the media will be happy because in all likelihood they support the wealthy Republican ideals he does. You will have been had by someone playing on your anger, justified or not. Hecka of way to choose a Presidfent.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | February 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to pull people together? What great theater. He's used the race card beautifully, even successfully turning it back on the Clinton's. Remember, he's the guy who's "unashamedly black" church have the great unifier Louis Farrakhan a friggin' lifetime achievement award. And he's got the mainstream media so scared to go after him with the zeal they go after Clinton. Brilliant. Now the super delegates will be committing another racial injustice if they vote how they want to. He makes "Slick Willy" look like a bumbling bumpkin.

Posted by: atstern | February 16, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I can't think of someone more hateful to women's real concerns than Elain Cho, Bush's Secrtetary of Labor.

http://shameonelaine.org/

Or how about Condaleeza Rice who thought it more important to buy shoes on Fifth Avenue than help her drowning sisters and their children in New Orleans?

The notion that our genitals determine our compassion or intelligence or political effectiveness for the other sex is provably false.

But if anyone wants to vote for someone for any reason other than their personal and political record, it's a free country.

Just don't complain when they don't deliver.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I have heard that Barack Obama voted in 2001 while in the Illinois Senate for a bill that restricted medical care it babies that were "accidentally" born during an abortion. If this is true do any of you Obama supporters really believe this will NOT come out during the general election? When it comes out how will you defend a candidate that supports infanticide?

Posted by: JustaFarmer | February 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

You can help elect the first woman President...! Even small donations add up. Each week I cook for myself instead of eating out after work, I can donate a little more at http://www.hillaryclinton.com. Thanks, Annette Keller.

Posted by: AsperGirl | February 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Women and especially women of color are having a stressful self examination concerning their vote. What do they want more, a chance for equal wages, equality with regard to so many things they don't have now. Should they vote for a Woman who would/could understand them better than any man ever could or loyalty to their race? The peer pressure is on folks. I feel sorry for them but I am also proud to support them which ever way they vote. But remember ladies and especially ladies of color, Obama is still a MAN and right now it's a man's world

Posted by: faray | February 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

For Obama supporters:

The Obama campaign is collecting personal stories about why you support him.

If you are interested, go to

http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f77636fede01191d/N3e6ws/VEsE/

Go tell it on the mountain!

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

iankeywest:

You say: "I support Clinton because I don't think that we need to bring people together to bring about change and solutions."

It is people like you that make me sick. Your mention Barack's middle name, as much as you can work it in, and claim you want to bring people together. Go back to your local Faux news station and get some fresh talking points.

I suppose your next posting will mention how Sen. Obama is a closet Muslim, who drinks the blood of Christians on Sunday's.

The problem with people like you, is that you do not believe in the possibility and power of hope.

1. Hillary will unify the GOP
2. She cannot pull the Indies
3. She will not pull any Republicans into the Dem fold
4. She will not bring transparency back to the government
5. She will not unify our country like Obama can.
6. She will not be able to bring a new face of America to the world.
7. Back door paybacks will continue to run amok.

You should get the point.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

This looks last-ditch to me. Hillary's last stand. I think they're doubling down and going for broke because if they lose Wisconsin and Texas, it really is all over.

I hope Obama knocks her block off. I'm so sick and tired of the negativity coming from her campaign. That line about how she's the "results" candidate is just infuriating. If you're all about results, Hillary, how come we're still waiting for your health care bill that failed in the '90s?

Posted by: mwfree | February 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a future!
-- As Barack Obama's Vice President!
[Not a bad job, after all]

and please:
Stop wasting $$$$$$$$$ on fighting each other!
-- Fight the Repugnants instead!

Posted by: index_on_censorship | February 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's attack ads will damage her even more, for they only show her meanness and pettiness. Obama should remain presidential and ignore her. I can't wait for her newest manager Ms. Williams of "900 missing FBI-files" fame (Filegate) to dig up the old chestnut of the "vast right-wing conspiracy", perhaps invent a vast Black left-wing conspiracy to match it. But the old paranoia game ain't going to work no more. Even the New Hampshire crocodile tears backfired, for they only made her look weak, and who wants a President who weeps when Al Kaida terrorists attack us again?

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"We shouldn't pick a nominee because we believe in a person, but because we believe in their specific policy proposals."

Really? Well that about says it all, doesn't it?

The essence of politics is compromise. Policy positions shift for every (effective) politician because life itself changes and so does the needs of a country.

As for politicians as persons though, the only thing that remains constant is personal character.

You're saying you'd rather work for someone who had no personal integrity (i.e., you couldn't trust a word out of their mouth) as long as they prosed a 2 hour lunch hour (which of course would end as soon as work demands shifted).

Wow.

Well, I can see why you support Hillary or rather her policies. Kinda like her policy about Iraq, which she changed when facing re-election concerns.

As for me I will vote for the person Barack. Because, regardless what the future brings, I trust his judgment, his integrity, his instincts.

"We shouldn't pick a nominee because we believe in a person"

Wow.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

ian, do you have friends who vote R? Are you and they able to talk about issues, one-by-one, and agree that some need to be resolved?

Most Americans live in neighborhoods where people have differing views and actually try to make some good come of the resolution of problems. I think it is why so many Americans - a majority, if pols can be believed, cannot understand polarizing failure of government while they can accept partisan approaches that end in compromises that address problems.

When the far right criticize McC for actually cosponsoring bills with Ds, most Americans think that is a recommendation. When BHO says he is willing to listen to people with views different than his own, most Americans are relieved. Most of us do not agree with anyone all the time. How boring and closed to change would that be?

We have a Prez who governs on the "50%+1 is a mandate" principle. Are you in favor of that if the Prez is someone you agree with?

Does half the country become disenfrachised with each election?

Ask that your leaders show at least as much willingness to discuss issues with each other as we are with our neighbors. Please.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Um...Hillary supported the legislation when it had teeth. By the time your guy got done with it- it was toothless and watered down. And the little people...well, they got pushed aside for the big people who could give big checks. You are carry water for a guy who does not deserve it. You should check the facts.

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com"

Um. No.

Hillary DID co-sign AND praise this bill AFTER it was, as you say, "water[ed]-down":


S.2348

Title: A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require a licensee to notify the Atomic Energy Commission, and the State and county in which a facility is located, whenever there is an unplanned release of fission products in excess of allowable limits.

Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 3/1/2006) Cosponsors (4)

Related Bills: H.R.4825

Latest Major Action: 9/25/2006 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637.

Senate Reports: 109-347 COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Boxer, Barbara - 9/12/2006
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 9/25/2006
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/1/2006
Sen Voinovich, George V. - 9/25/2006″

Finished form placed on calendar 9/25/2006
Hillary signs on 9/25/2006, AFTER bill is finalized.

What did Hillary say about this bill at the time?

"Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) applauded the approval today by a key Senate committee of legislation to require nuclear plant operators to quickly notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the state and county in which the plant is located, of any leak of radioactive substances, such as the releases from the spent fuel pools at Indian Point that occurred last August. Senator Clinton joined Senator Obama in bringing the legislation to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, where it was unanimously approved today."

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.c fm?id=262953


Nice try though.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama will be accused of wanting to wave the white flag of surrender and surrender a war that we are winning in Iraq. Domestic issues won't even be debated because Barack Hussein Obama will be defending why he wants to turn Iraq over to terrorists who might attack us here at home. Then, before the election, a small international event will be blown out of proportion by McCain but will call into question Barack Hussein Obama's preparedness to be Commander in Chief. There will be ads showing Obama joking around or alluding to his drug use, with a photo of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It will make people wonder whether they can picture Obama as Commander of Chief.

I think that everything above is wrong, but if you Obama folks think that this isn't what the GOP will throw at him if he receives the nomination, you're deluding yourselves. His middle name will be in every ad. There will be swift boating.

Obama does not have the broad national support to win a general election. I am 95% certain that he'll lose Michigan and Florida because he is so opposed to enfranchising our voters. Florida Democrats are disenchanted and angry with Obama, and many are talking about voting for McCain.

Senator Clinton will be able to change the debate with McCain from the war to domestic policy areas where he is weak.

We shouldn't pick a nominee because we believe in a person, but because we believe in their specific policy proposals. There is good change and bad change, and Obama's supporters talk about supporting "change" as if that refers to one specific thing.

I support Clinton because I don't think that we need to bring people together to bring about change and solutions. Right wing Republicans will never support my positions, and frankly, I don't think that time should be wasted on them.

Posted by: iankeywest | February 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

This lifelong Democrat and Bill Clinton supporter will not support Hillary Clinton for President. Her manipulative tactics - he won't debate in Wisconsin, c'mon now, how many times has Obama debated already, with more to come - and change-with-the-wind beliefs make her undignified beyond description.

If it comes down to McCain-Clinton, I will either vote McCain or not vote at all. The Clinton family's shame knows no bounds.

Posted by: doctorevil667 | February 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

10
UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS
FOR HILLARY CLINTON
"Thanks in no small part to Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton may
be the most investigated person in the history of the Republic."
-Margaret Carlson of TIME Magazine
?
Now that Hillary Clinton is an official candidate for President of the United States, the American people will take a long, hard look at her record. And any discussion of Hillary Clinton's record begins and ends with her crimes and ethical transgressions.
Judicial Watch, of course, has been pursuing both Hillary and Bill Clinton since its inception, launching numerous investigations and lawsuits. However, despite clear evidence of Clinton corruption, so many questions remain unanswered.
If Judicial Watch were given an opportunity to interview Hillary Clinton, here are the ten (plus) questions we would ask first:
Who in the Clinton administration devised the plan to sell taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore 1996 re-election campaign?
Sworn testimony from Nolanda Hill, partner and confidante of the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, points to you as mastermind of the scheme.
Why did you give "factually false" testimony under oath in the investigation of the White House Travel Office firings, as former Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated in his final report.
Ray said his office found "overwhelming evidence" you played a role in the dismissals of the seven longtime employees in the White House travel office, which you denied under oath.
Who hired former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone and ordered him to illegally obtain for the Clinton administration the FBI files of former staffers in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush?
Sworn testimony and at least one FBI docment shows you hired Livingstone.
?
1
2
3
Why did you fail to report more than $2 million in contributions to your Senate 2000 campaign?
Testimony from the criminal investigation and trial of your National Finance Director, David Rosen, shows you knew the total costs of the fundraiser, yet failed to accurately report them.
Your brothers Anthony and Hugh Rodham allegedly brokered cash deals to obtain presidential pardons from your husband on behalf of convicted criminals. Were you aware they were each paid large sums to obtain these pardons?
Did you play any role in any of the 140 presidential pardons provided by Bill Clinton in the waning days of his administration, bypassing the normal pardon review process? How about the pardons of the Puerto Rican terrorists in the run-up to your first Senate campaign? Did you have any input on those?
Did you or your lawyers hire private detectives to investigate and intimidate critics of the Clinton administration?
What did you instruct James Carville and George Stephanopoulos to say in order to discredit and defame Gennifer Flowers, a woman with whom your husband had an affair?
Evidence suggests they smeared her at your behest. Did you play any role in smearing and defaming other women sexually and otherwise abused by your husband, including, but not limited to: Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Juanita Broaddrick?
Records from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reveal that you turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in 1978 into to more than $100,000 in ten months... a return of 10,000%. How did you earn such an astronomical, and unbelievable, return on this investment?
?
4
5
6
7
8
Judicial Watch
501 School St. SW • 5th Floor • Washington, DC 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172 • 888-JW-ETHIC • 888-593-8442
Email: info@judicialwatch.org • Internet Site: www.judicialwatch.org
•
Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes legislation or candidates for public office.
•
How much money does Bill Clinton earn from his relationship with Ron Burkle, a contributor to your Senate campaigns, and Burkle's company, Yucaipa?
Are these funds currently available in bank accounts to which you have access? Will you use these funds for your campaign? How about Bill's speaking fees, some paid for by foreign interests and governments - what are the financial benefits to you?
How do you explain the mysterious disappearance of your Whitewater billing records from the office of Vince Foster, the former Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton White House counsel who allegedly committed suicide in 1993?
How do you explain the mysterious reappearance of those same records in the White House with your fingerprints on them?
Stopping at ten questions is hard to do. We could ask about her illegal White House fundraising coffees, doing business with the State of Arkansas while her husband was governor, Web Hubbell, John Huang, Chinese generals, the Lippo Group, and paid sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom.
These questions are important and relevant as the American people weigh Hillary's candidacy. We deserve some honest answers.
?
9
10

Posted by: Taskfor6 | February 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"I totally agree with those above who noted that Obama routinely attacks her in his stump speech and the media never says anything:"

This is not about going after each other's policy differences. This is about falsely putting it out that Barack is a Muslim, or that he is a drug-dealer, or someone with no experience or that he is getting votes just because he is black...all personal and baseless attacks.

THAT is why the media calls Hillary the Queen of Mean.

NOT ONCE has Barack mentioned any personal matter concerning the Clintons and there is plenty of dirt...and real dirt at that.

The Clintons play dirty. They always have. No use denying it. If you like playing in the dirt, you're just who they're looking for.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I respect Senator Clinton's intelligence and as a fellow female attorney, I know some of the garbage she has had to deal with regarding the glass ceiling. That doesn't mean I have to vote for her.

Clinton and Senator Obama are identical in many of their stances. I am however, wary of her mandatory universal health care program and failure to address the failing social security system. I have heard sensible changes from Senator Obama on both fronts. Therefore he has my vote.

Posted by: corridorg4 | February 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary needs to run an ad letting the voters of WI know how obama lied about his Nuclear Power legislation to the Iowa voters."

um. Hillary CO-SIGNED Barack's nuclear bill. Her pollster, Mark Penn, does PR for Exelon.

Hillary is OWNED by corporate America. Barack is financed by us, the little people.

Do the research.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 12:53 PM

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

Um...Hillary supported the legislation when it had teeth. By the time your guy got done with it- it was toothless and watered down. And the little people...well, they got pushed aside for the big people who could give big checks. You are carry water for a guy who does not deserve it. You should check the facts.

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

Posted by: darlamc | February 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

I think Barack Obama should refuse any more debates until Hillary Clinton shares her tax record. Why waste breathe debating someone who is clearly not interested in transparency or honesty?

Posted by: arielwire | February 16, 2008 11:49 AM


I thought the bitc..., er, Senator Clinton, said that she would open up her financial records, but only during the General Election.

Posted by: JD | February 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

And then there's suppressing the black vote in Texas...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=285748

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

ESR1,

You forgot to mention the display of personal integrity by demanding that that delegations from Fl and MI be seated at the convention.

Posted by: anonthistime | February 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

That nobody in one Harlemprecinct voted for BHO was apparently a clue to somebody that the BHO vote in NYC was, uh, "undercounted".

From the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree with those above who noted that Obama routinely attacks her in his stump speech and the media never says anything. But when she draws contrasts, it is somehow positioned as some super negative attacks. REALLY??? Seriously folks, these are just legitimate contrasts based on actual things Barack has stated.

Factcheck.org did an analysis of the 1st two Clinton / Obama WI debate ads and here is the link. They note that Obama was misleading in his ads in a couple of areas.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html

Posted by: MAB2 | February 16, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary definitely is a fighter. Especially when it comes to her tax returns, presidential papers, and the Clinton library donor list.

Not so much when the interests of ordinary Americans are concerned.

Posted by: JPRS | February 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

In running negative ads, the Clinton campaign is trying to help prepare Obama for what, if he wins the nomination, the Republicans will throw at him.

It would be uncollegial if Hillary Clinton didn't share what she has learned from experience with the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and rehearse him for coping with it:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-clintons-nuclear-option.html

Posted by: connectdots | February 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary needs to run an ad letting the voters of WI know how obama lied about his Nuclear Power legislation to the Iowa voters."

um. Hillary CO-SIGNED Barack's nuclear bill. Her pollster, Mark Penn, does PR for Exelon.

Hillary is OWNED by corporate America. Barack is financed by us, the little people.

Do the research.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments by some of the (alleged) Hillary supporters on this blog indicate one of the problems with her campaign. You cannot win by insulting Republicans, all men, African Americans, "young" Americans, Obama supporters, "Small" states, large states, caucus states, states with African American populations, and the media.

At some point you find yourself in a very tight little mutual admiration society with all of the blinds drawn and your fingers in your ears. That is exactly what we have seen from President Bush.

The people are tired of this.

I'm actually looking forward to an Obama/McCain matchup, I think that it will be the kind of respectful contest that America needs right now.

Posted by: ESR1 | February 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to run an ad letting the voters of WI know how obama lied about his Nuclear Power legislation to the Iowa voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

Also how obama's camp has been threatening the CBC members who support Hillary.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27027

DON'T THROW THIS ELECTION AWAY ON OBAMA, HE ISN'T WHAT HE CLAIMS HE IS, VOTE FOR HILLARY!

Posted by: sjl106 | February 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

That ad series can be summed up pretty well as: Evita for the ignorants!

Posted by: JPRS | February 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris:
Watching you on MSNBC with Russert...don't go back to the beard! You look great without it. Just get a better pic for the blog.

P.s., what did you decide on voting?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

This is pathetic over protection for Barack Obama.
I saw the add in YOUTUBE and IT IS NOT A NEGATIVE AD. It is a challenge ad. The ad is challenging Obama to debate on issues Clinton believes are questionable, that is it. And if one notices, not even the Governor of Wisconsin is coming out to respond to Clinton's claims. He is just kicking and screaming like a baby, insulting her and the rest of the people's intelligence saying they are negative. And that this is what the American people want to get away from...what, the truth? Whichever it is? Whether it is for or against either candidate's favor? I don't believe so.

Also,when Mr. Obama attacks and goes negative, well he is defending himself,that is all.

You need a strong president. What is Mr. Obama going to do when he agrees to sit with Chavez and have a "non pre-dispositions" conversation with him and Chavez begins to insult the United States. Is he going to cry? Or does he expect the Obamaists to come to his rescue. The press certainly will, but Chavez would look like a hero that told the United States President off in his face to the many anti Americans in the world. And these will be images and sound bites that will not be forgotten.

This is pathetic and dangerous. The real world is a tough world, people. Let them compete.

This is not a negative ad. It is simply challenging Mr. Obama. I wonder, also why no one in the Obama camp is truly contesting...maybe because they truly can't?

Scary, scary stuff, but the media is even more scary.

Posted by: poh123 | February 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

somebody needs to slap people out of their zombie-like admiration of obama. that's not negative. it's good public service.

Posted by: darrren12000 | February 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The reason that the women I cite are better examples of breaking the glass ceiling is that they got there on their own abilities.

Nobody can seriously believe that Chicago native Hillary Clinton would have run a first-time Senate run in New York if she were still the wife of a law professor in Arkansas.

Posted by: ESR1 | February 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The popular vote is a very compelling argument to put forth before the superdelegates - however the real story is not that simple

it's a bit like changing the rules in the middle of the game after one sees what the totals look like

Here is why: Each campaign starts off the campaign season with a set of polls showing the states in which they are doing well, and not doing well - each has a set of resources that it can employ in order to reach the objectives

The main objectives are delegates - however in the early races momentum has become key

The point is this: if a campaign sees it is behind in a state, it must weigh the POTENTIAL GAIN vs. the RESOURCES it should employ For instance, Obama could have ran more tv commericials in the New York metro market in order to raise his vote totals in NY, NJ and Connecticut - HOWEVER vote totals were not the game then, delegates were.

Conversely, hillary could have ran ads in smaller markets to raise her popular vote, however the campaign rightly chose to employ the scarce dollars in the areas where they thought the best chance of DELEGATES were for her campaign.

So each campaign is out there EVALUATING their own strengths and weaknesses, attempting to gain the delegates - THEY LEAVE THE OTHER AREAS RELATIVELY WITHOUT RESOURCES - this includes some very heavily populated areas.

So it really is not fair, and in fact wrong, to create a whole new criteria that no campaign was aiming for originally. Its like in Monopoly, all of a sudden saying that the winner is the one with the most properties, without regard for which properties are more valuable. If it was about popular vote from the very beginning, BOTH campaigns would have conducted their campaigns entirely differently - right down to the message as well.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Cutting social security is very fiscally responsible. Great that Obama has the courage to do that.

I'd like to see some money in the trust fund when I retire. No wonder these old folks support Clinton. With Obama their milking of social security will end.

Obama all the way!!!!
http://www.barackobama.com/

Posted by: gei300103 | February 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I will be surprised if Wisconsin voters fall for her nagative, and hard to swallow, ads about the debate issue. At least the press is noting the fact that her accusations make no sense.

Posted by: dyork

-----------------
Dyork, I'm not sure you misspelled "negative" on purpose, but I like the new word "NAGative" you used. Yes, Hillary is on the nagative!

Posted by: johng1 | February 16, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I've heard this a lot lately and am wondering whether anyone would be willing to either give an example or, failing that, give a description of a woman who might be a better--what? Role model? Ceiling-buster? President?...than Hillary Clinton.

Christine Gregoire (WA gov)
Kathleen Sibelius (KA gov)
Janet Napolitano (AZ gov)
and of course Michelle Obama (one of the most powerful women in Chicago *before* Senator Obama's senate run.)

By the way, all of these women have endorsed Senator Obama.

Posted by: ESR1 | February 16, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe Hillary's campaign should be looked at like Jesse Jackson's. Jesse is not someone who should ever become president and neither is Hillary. But because of Jesse's caampaign success Barack has a chance. Because of Hillary's success a woman has a chance. But like Jesse, Hillary should never be President."

Certainly Hillary has laid the path for women in politics. And this campaign is defnitely addressing the covert and overt sexism in the media etc.

The problem, according to the women I speak with, is that they feel she isn't achieving it on her own merits, like Maggie Thatcher did, but on Bill's coattails and so it actually damages the struggle for sexual equality rather than move it forward.

Not sure if that's true or even relevant, but I can see the point.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

How about showing Obama's ads as well?

Posted by: sjxylib | February 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"If anything, the glass ceiling is racial, not sexual."

wpost4112 is EXACTLY RIGHT about this. The statistics he cited expose the most offensive if not racist statement in Gloria Steinem's New York Times screed in favor of Hillary Clinton: that black men have had far greater success in politics than white women.

Posted by: uh_huhh | February 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Hillary's campaign should be looked at like Jesse Jackson's. Jesse is not someone who should ever become president and neither is Hillary. But because of Jesse's caampaign success Barack has a chance. Because of Hillary's success a woman has a chance. But like Jesse, Hillary should never be President.

Posted by: dyork | February 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

So-called glass ceiling:

Number of female US governors: 23, 8 serving.
Number of black male US governors: 3, 1 serving.


Number of female US senators: 35, 16 serving.
Number of black male US senators: 4, 1 serving.

Seems like women are doing quite well in political leadership roles, esp considering that most presidents come from governors.

If anything, the glass ceiling is racial, not sexual.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

These negative ads always get horrible press but seem to work in the end. Voters haven't heard to many nasty things about Obama yet, so this could be a last-minute winner for HRC.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | February 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Here's the sign I want to see in Wisconsin crowds at Billary rallies

Shady commodity trading in the 1980s? $100,000!
End of term pardon?
$1 million!
Sketchy loan to own campaign?
$5 million!
President Obama?
Priceless!

The Clintons are wallowing in muck so deep at this stage that it is possible they will do literaly anything to get the nomination, at a dire cost to the party and to America. Hopefully us badgers can sieze this opportunity on Feb. 19 to make this the last time the Clintons have the chance to prize their own political hides above party principle or the good of the country.

Barack the Vote baby!!!

Posted by: esj1011 | February 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Here's the sign I want to see in Wisconsin crowds at Billary rallies

Shady commodity trading in the 1980s? $100,000!
End of term pardon?
$1 million!
Sketchy loan to own campaign?
$5 million!
President Obama?
Priceless!

The Clintons are wallowing in muck so deep at this stage that it is possible they will do literaly anything to get the nomination, at a dire cost to the party and to America. Hopefully us badgers can siexe this opportunity on Feb. 19 to make this the last time the Clintons have the chance to prize their own political hides above party principle or the good of the country.

Barack the Vote baby!!!

Posted by: esj1011 | February 16, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"State Senator Barack Obama on Donald Rumsfeld 2001

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com"


Um. Hillary VOTED to approve Rumsfeld's appointment in the same year. Your point is......?

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I think Barack Obama should refuse any more debates until Hillary Clinton shares her tax record. Why waste breathe debating someone who is clearly not interested in transparency or honesty?

Posted by: arielwire | February 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"I've heard this a lot lately and am wondering whether anyone would be willing to either give an example or, failing that, give a description of a woman who might be a better--what? Role model? Ceiling-buster? President?...than Hillary Clinton.

"I think venturing a few answers to this question might tell us a lot about whether gender is really an issue or not.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the late Governor Ann Richards of Texas, Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta.

Posted by: uh_huhh | February 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

State Senator Barack Obama on Donald Rumsfeld 2001

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

Posted by: darlamc | February 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

A Clinton-Obama ticket is a pipedream. Bill Clinton would suck up all the oxygen and Hillary's vice-president would be a sorry soul, indeed -- trapped in a job whose only relevance in our government is derivative, that is, comes from whatever role the President lets him or her play -- which in this case would be zero.

As for an Obama-Clinton ticket, I don't see how Obama can campaign against the past and then put Hillary on the ticket. If he is the nominee he ought to choose Joe Biden, who would bring national security and foreign policy savvy to the ticket -- something Obama admittedly needs to beef up. Another option would be to make Bill Richardson veep and Biden Sec. of State.

Posted by: jac13 | February 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Clintons = Dirty Politics
Clintons = More of the Clinton Era
Clintons = Same moral values (none)

Hillary thinks Wisconsin cannot see her and Bills tactics..... Its like a bad taste....NO MORE OF THE SAME!! We want peace Hillary you want stife you need it to feed. Do not bring it here to Wisconsin!!

Posted by: Barrack_007 | February 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton lied under oath while he was President. Hillary raced through 140 million in a couple months of her campaign (30 mil in Iowa alone) and made NO plans after Feb 5 because she ASSUMED she would have the nomination wrapped up by then.

Kinda like the way Bush and Cheney lied about WMD and assumed that the war would be over in one month.

Either of them are hardly the "couple" to inspire confidence in our government.

Good riddance to the Bush/Clinton era.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"I agree with Maureen Dowd's (reporter with NY times) analysis of the media's portrayal of the Clinton's. Hillary is fighting an uphill battle, one that would be fought by any woman seeking the presidency."

It's absolutely amazing that you can say you agree with her analysis and in the same paragraph demonstrate that you either (a) don't understand what she wrote or (b) didn't read what she wrote. Which is it?

Here's a quote from her column to help you decide: "As a possible first Madame President, Hillary is a flawed science experiment because you can't take Bill out of the equation. Her story is wrapped up in her marriage, and her marriage is wrapped up in a series of unappetizing compromises, arrangements and dependencies."

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

VegetablesPlease,
I think you might be looking back at the Clinton years through slightly rose-tinted glasses.

As President, Bill Clinton had his share of accomplishments, and he certainly compares favorably with Bush One and Two(thats not really setting the bar very high), but his presidency was also marked by extremely bitter fighting with the Republican controlled Congress.

Do you remember when the government was effectively shut down because of a budget impass? Do you remember what it was like wading through one scandal after another? Even if the scandals were 90% figments of the Republican imagination, they were still a tedious distraction, and they still dominated every news cycle.

The Clinton years were not all bad. I would go so far as to say they were pretty good. But, they were ugly. I believe it is possible to do a lot better.

Posted by: bryan_444 | February 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I appreciate the comments on my earlier assertion that many people are voting against Hillary because they can't see a woman in power.

I also feel much of the hatred against Hillary comes from the conservative media and the picture they painted of Bill. Here's an earlier post from Vegetablesplease:

"The Clinton disfunction, as Dowd calls it, was and is a creation of the media."

I agree with Maureen Dowd's (reporter with NY times) analysis of the media's portrayal of the Clinton's. Hillary is fighting an uphill battle, one that would be fought by any woman seeking the presidency.

The things that many see as positive in Obama, courage, compassion, speaking ability, speaking the truth, and seen as negatives in Hillary. I think this comes from a male dominated society, one that's not ready to admit it. Men are sometimes given the benefit of the doubt in this area, whereas a woman has to fight for each step.

You may not agree with my assertions, but try to analyze the candidates by giving them a fair and critical look on the issues alone.

The debate on Social Security is doing just that. I like Obama's take on raising the caps. A tough call, but one that may be necessary.

Again I think the pair, Clinton and Obama would be best for us, with Hillary as president.

Posted by: newsensations | February 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I think that the next advertisment is going to be "Hillary Clinton does not care about your vote."

Look at what Mark Penn has been telling reporters:

Two days later, after Obama's eighth straight victory, Penn told reporters: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries."

So we should just ignore the democratic process and install Hillary as the nominee because she and Mark Penn think that she is the best candidate.

This illustrates the depth of arrogance and incompetence in the Clinton team. We have already elected one President with those qualities and I don't think that we can afford another.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8551.html

Posted by: ESR1 | February 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse


"VegetablesPlease," I see your views are well-fertilized with horse pucky."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 11:10 AM

Another substantive comeback by an Obama supporter.

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

Chandra, you lost all credibility with your "Obama is Hitler" analogy. But I kept reading and you said "he's great at running campaigns." Well, that's more than we can say for Hillary, isn't it? She's incompetent.

We're supposed to believe HRC is so effective when she didn't even read the NIE, didn't know what the Levin amendment said, voted with the Bush fear-mongerers on Iran? Puhleeze.

In every instance where she has been given a chance to demonstrate this "ready on day one" claim, she has failed. And failed miserably.

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Concerning the Clinton dysfunction....

when y'all have time, wander on over to

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/

and read the interviews (warning: start w Carville, Albright's is the most boring).

It's a pretty balanced account of the Clinton years from those who were there and one thing is repeated by several:

Most of the troubles are laid at Hillary's feet because of her paranoia and control-freak modus operandi.

She's very much like Nixon and George W...secretive, hates the press, vindictive, likes yes-women, unable to work with others, quick to blame, never admits fault...etc etc.

QUITE revealing. You owe it to yourselves to read em.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Politics is dirty, people. Yes, we get a Paul Wellstone once in a while, but by and large, it's a dirty game. We should get over our delusions about Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 16, 2008 10:58 AM


"VegetablesPlease," I see your views are well-fertilized with horse pucky.

Robert Kennedy used to say that politics is an honorable adventure.

Obviously, with your views, you must support Hillary.

Hard to say that there is anything honorable about Hillary and Bill--so at least you are consistent.

Clean Slate!!!
Barack Obama,
'08!!!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

VegetablesPlease, The first time I heard Barbara Jordan speak from the floor of the TX Senate I was a law student legislative clerk on the House side. when I worked in David Richards' law office I got to know his then wife - they had big swim parties/BBQs at their home in Westlake, and I loved hanging out with that crowd.

On the scale from Harding to Lincoln, Jordan was surely closer to Abe, but by reason of the personal affection I had for Dave and Ann I know that I cannot be objective about Ann.
Jordan and Sen. Bentsen were more "conservative" than Ann and I was a Bentsen kind of guy, but Ann broke the mold, and Jordan was her mentor.

I do not see HRC as having nearly the raw leadership potential or ability of Barbara Jordan or Ann Richards. I know that I am now an old hand at this, and my memories may be fonder than reality, but I just do not see it.

HRC's pandering of her refusal to take on entitlements as if she were a friend of the people is a fine example of a failure of will and leadership.

As for women who are alive and well, Snowe and Sebellius are two excellent examples of actual leadership potential. I must agree with Jim, again.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Can Obama catch Osama? How can Mr. Obama be a good candidate for the presidency with zero foreign policy experience? Remember we elected one before without a clue? I feel this whole Obama thing is mostly without substance and lot of it ─media hype. Every political event that Mr. Obama attends is such a media savvy, scripted and orchestrated affair. His arrival, getting on the stage, the background faces, all of it done on cue with the help of consultants and managers like in a movie production, with perfect pitch and timing for the newscast footage, for the maximum effect--reminiscent of Hitler's big frenzied rallies in Berlin─ using all the elements of the stagecraft. Although he's extremely short on substance, in these days of slick marketing, Mr. Obama has so far proven that he's great at running campaigns. Remember we've tried that one before? What we need right now is substance, substance and more substance to deal with worsening problems in the country, rather than all the foolish talk, and Obama style phantasmagoria. US is now 40th in the world in infant mortality, in longevetiy 41st ! We are quickly on our way to becoming a third world country! Someone said that US has become "the richest third world country in the world!" What we need now is a person like Hillary Clinton who has a sober manner and a practical head on her shoulders. Mr. Obama is so dependent on media to prop him up, and Mr. Obama's image seemed so well manufactured for the consumption and the manipulation of the public, his politics looking more and more like a Hollywood production than a real life political event. While Mr. Obama's message is about change, what Mr. Obama really does seemed to be steeped in corporate media that cheered us along in a very big way to the quagmire in Iraq. Mr. Obama also claims to be MLK and even JFK, without having done tiniest fraction of the vast accomplishments of MLK or JFK. Do you really want to go back to those tragic times of American history? Mr. Obama even lacks a sustentative legislative record. But for American media, deeds have little value if you have the right image. I watch Mr. Obama's rise in alarm for the sake of America's future. His hubris is unsurpassed in American politics. I find him and his message without a clear political logic or details, more suited for TV audience, no discussion of issues, programs or policies, rather his speeches are full of name dropping and all sorts of claims, rich in platitudes and slogans. How come Mr. Obama's embracing the Kennedy Camelot of the 60's is considered going forward by the media, and if Hillary Clinton looks back to the 90's for guidance─ now that's considered going backwards?

Posted by: chandraperera | February 16, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"But wpost4112, you are forgetting about all those "mildly racist" people who will vote against Obama. They will come out of the wood work!"

Not enough to derail the general election....just Wisconsin and probably Ohio.

It's just plain silly not to recognize that racism is playing a part.

The great blessing is that Barack will finish the work begun by Abe and Martin: healing the black/white divide.

He's already begun that healing.

But in contrast, Hillary sows division wherever she goes and in fact is making the male/female divide worse.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"One thing is certainly clear. If Barack wins the nomination, he will win huge in the general." wpost4112


But wpost4112, you are forgetting about all those "mildly racist" people who will vote against Obama. They will come out of the wood work!

=========

Possibly but there would be many many more Clinton-haters "coming out of the woodowork" to vote her down should she be the nominee.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I'm so sick of Hillary supporters blaming sexism for her string of losses! Maine has sent two women to the Senate, yet she got thumped there. It's not that she's a woman; it's the woman she is! She is corrupt, inept and has a sense of entitlement.

Also, even her most ardent admirers must now question her claim of competence. Her sole executive adventure--her campaign--is a disaster! She started off with all the money, all the institutional support, all the name recognition and has run her campaign into the ditch!

She was so sure she would win by 2/5 that she didn't plan beyond that. What kind of competent CEO fails to have a Plan B? She values loyalty beyond competence (like Bush) and kept "yes men" in place even when they failed.

She can't manage a campaign budget but we're supposed to believe she can handle the national budget?

She's changes campaign slogans like she changes her underwear. This shows that she (like Fred Thompson) has no clear rationale for her campaign, except "it's my turn."

Face it: HRC has exhibited Bush-like incompetence.

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"What could you--or your husband--say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity?"

MARTIN EDWIN 'MICK' ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 10:38 AM

Again with the extra heat on the Clintons. No one remembers the Iran Contra scandal. And don't even get me started on the gang of cronies in office now who have been trying to run things from one arm of the govt. or another since 1980. Compared to the chicanery of Reagan, Cheney and the Bush family, Whitewater (which came to nothing, as I remember) and the Monica Lewinsky affair seem quaint.

I doubt that if we turned the light on the Obamas with the same harshness we have been turning it on the Clintons that Barack & co. would come out looking as saintly as they do now.

Politics is dirty, people. Yes, we get a Paul Wellstone once in a while, but by and large, it's a dirty game. We should get over our delusions about Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

"One thing is certainly clear. If Barack wins the nomination, he will win huge in the general." wpost4112


But wpost4112, you are forgetting about all those "mildly racist" people who will vote against Obama. They will come out of the wood work!

Posted by: anonthistime | February 16, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

BREAKING: The Houston Chronicle, the largest paper in Texas just endorsed Barack Obama.

=========

The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.

Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party. In a conference call, Obama told the Chronicle editorial board that "more than any other candidate, I can bridge some of the partisan as well as racial and religious divides that have developed in this country that prevent us from getting things done."

=======

Obama is getting all the big paper endorsements in TX. Just another sign that Texas is going to go to Obama. Hillary is finished.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

...old Clinton dysfunction."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html

It's not a gender thing at all. It's a Clinton thing.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 16, 2008 10:36 AM

It does indeed boggle the mind just how disfunctional our country was during the (first) Clinton administration. So disfunctional, in fact, that my taxes (I'm lower middle class, if that) were considerably lower (I got a refund every year rather than having to give $600 to the govt. every spring), unemployment stayed at around 3%, our nation was at peace, we were respected around the world and our government, at the end of his 2 terms, was left with a giant surplus.

The Clinton disfunction, as Dowd calls it, was and is a creation of the media. If you're old enough to remember Bill Clinton's first days in office, you will recall that the man wasn't president for a week before the media and the right wing turned all their energies to destroying him and his wife (heck, it was happening even before that). The fact that they came out the other side of it relatively unscathed and managed even to do a decent job in the White House is testament to their remarkable resiliency, not to their "sliminess" or whatever else people wish to call it.

I don't care how the Clintons manage their private lives, as it's none of my business, nor is it anyone else's business. But if I did, one look at Chelsea Clinton would be enough to convince me that these are decent people. Perfect? No. Decent, yes.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 16, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama will not do any debate in WI but has agreed to two more debates one in Texas and I think one in Ohio. Personally I am sick of the debates. They have little significance in my opinion. I prefer more the town hall type events where real people can ask real questions and let the candidates speak as long as he/she wnats without these stupid debate rules that are setup to encorage fighting.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

ONLY 4,000 showed up in Green Bay and ONLY 4,000 showed up in Milwaukee for the Obama rallies. Boy, the Obama campaign has now set a new standard where 4,000 is considered a small number. This is amazing. In the past 4,000 would be a thrilling crowd for a primary campaign.

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

I've heard this a lot lately and am wondering whether anyone would be willing to either give an example or, failing that, give a description of a woman who might be a better--what? Role model? Ceiling-buster? President?...than Hillary Clinton.

I think venturing a few answers to this question might tell us a lot about whether gender is really an issue or not.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 16, 2008 10:29 AM

We shouldn't be electing a president to prove that glass ceilings can be shattered or, primarily, to enshrine a national role model. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate who has a decidedly shady background - look at all the scandals associated with her and Bill. She is as divisive as Bush and the last thing we need is another 4 - 8 years of divisiveness.

I could support female candidates such as Kathleen Sebelius or Olympia Snowe.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

If Obama agrees to another debate, I hope someone will ask Hillary the following question:

"Ma'am, your husband's presidency was marked by scandals running from the salacious to national security, you've run a campaign based on race coding, and both you and your husband have scant regard for the truth.

"Personal responsibility is the key to government accountability.

"What could you--or your husband--say to young people, what could you possibly bring to the table, for those who need to hear a message of honesty and integrity?"

MARTIN EDWIN 'MICK' ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Here's the news report about the Eau Claire cancellation:

======

The campaign appearance of Senator HIllary Clinton in Eau Claire this Monday has been cancelled.

Local Clinton campaign spokesperson Lori Scott told TV-13 News that she received notice of the cancellation late Friday night. The reasons were not totally made clear by higher campaign officials, but Scott inferred that the decision centered around the high number of appearances on the senator's schedule elsewhere.

=========

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/15698777.html

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"HRC refused to even put anything on the table. From the Dartmouth debate:
"I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with."
Irresponsible."

Mark: And not particularly courageous or loaded with specifics. HRC's current policy of attacking BHO for a lack of specifics is formulated from the inside of a glass house whilst throwing stones.

And I think that Dowd sums it up re HRC:
"But Hillary is not the best test case for women. We'll never know how much of the backlash is because she's a woman or because she's this woman or because of the ick factor of returning to the old Clinton dysfunction."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html

It's not a gender thing at all. It's a Clinton thing.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Hillary just cancelled her Eau Claire, WI appearance for Monday. No coherent explanation given. I think her campaign sees another blowout coming. I suspect she will now say Wiscnsin is unimportant and insignificant with too many black people and Obama-crazed students.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Sure.

Michelle Obama.
Class act, A to Z.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

NOTHING to do with women in power, just THIS woman.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 09:54 AM

I've heard this a lot lately and am wondering whether anyone would be willing to either give an example or, failing that, give a description of a woman who might be a better--what? Role model? Ceiling-buster? President?...than Hillary Clinton.

I think venturing a few answers to this question might tell us a lot about whether gender is really an issue or not.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 16, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

One thing is certainly clear. If Barack wins the nomination, he will win huge in the general. Demss are out twice as big in the primaries and Barack has galvanized the youth and the new voters.

McCain alienates the social conservatives who will stay home. Barack will win the independents from McCain because independents are anti-war. Plus he will be supported by all the dems, even the women who wil not trust McCain to put another Alito on the Supreme Court and end a woman's right to choose.

Of course, many things may alter this course. They are beyond our control SO we are left with voting for whom we think is best for the job and that's about it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama gets another newspaper endorsement --the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

=========

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive. It is precisely the excitement that we see in the candidate and his supporters in their demands for change. This promises to alter the political landscape and dynamics for the better, energizing youth for service and involvement as we haven't seen in a very long time.

In Clinton, there is the potential for déjà vu all over again. Right or wrong, she is a polarizing figure who excites all the wrong kinds of political passions. His experience as community organizer, state legislator, U.S. senator and campaigner who took a dream and became a credible contender measures up well against Clinton's experience as poverty lawyer, first lady and U.S. senator.

=========

This is a big one both sides were courting.

Posted by: zb95 | February 16, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

WPost4112 says "Only 4500 showed up at the GreenBay rally. Again, not the 20,000 that showed up at Madison"

The capacity for the Kress Events Center in Green Bay is between 3-4000. So Obama's 4500 was well beyond capacity. They probably turned people away. Also, his rally in GB was at 5 PM, not 8PM like in Madison.

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

***
Hillary can win in the big states that are must wins for the Dems in November and Obama can not. Hillary is the strongest candidate in the race. VOTE SMART! VOTE HILLARY!!

ROCK ON HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TAH1 | February 16, 2008 09:31 AM
***
Most blue states won by Clinton have been and will be won by any Dem candidate in the general elections. It might not necessarily demonstrate Clinton's strength in the general election. On the other hand, Obama's winning in the traditionally red states might show more possibility of winning in November. For it's hard to imagine that, say mass, will vote for McCain simply because Hilary was not nominated as the Dem candidate.

Posted by: pinepine | February 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse


When McCain wins, the Democratic will have the racist or misogynistic rationale for the loss.

It would have nothing to do with lack of Obama's experience as cited by Hillary or the 35 years of obfuscation, deceit and deception as cited by Obama backers. Just that the nasty old Rove came back from the grave.

Posted by: anonthistime | February 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I, for one, resent the suggestion that I oppose Hillary Clinton because of her gender. There are countless, non-gender-based reasons I think she'd be bad for the country, just as there are countless, non-race-based reasons I think Obama would be better.

Please avoid this kind of attack, for which you have absolutely no basis, and advocate for your candidate on the issues -- if you can. (And by "the issues," I don't mean the baloney about Obama not having any specific positions -- disproven by Hillary's ads, which attack him for positions she's previously been saying he doesn't have!)

Posted by: jac13 | February 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

AND THE WINNER IS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&feature=related

Hillary in her own words.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA ...

Obama: Change for the good

From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Feb. 16, 2008
There is only the tiniest sliver of daylight separating Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issues, with the notable exception of health care reform.

Even on Iraq, they end up in much the same place: Steady U.S. troop withdrawal, leaving themselves enough wiggle room in case the situation on the ground becomes so dire that more flexibility becomes necessary.

The similarity of views is, in truth, why the candidates return so much to the themes of change and experience.

Our recommendation in Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday for the Democratic nomination is Barack Obama. That's our recommendation because change and experience are crucial to moving this country forward after what will be eight years of an administration careening from mistake to catastrophe to disaster and back again.

The Illinois senator is best-equipped to deliver that change, and his relatively shorter time in Washington is more asset than handicap.

The Obama campaign has been derisively and incorrectly described as more rock tour than political campaign and his supporters as more starry-eyed groupies than thoughtful voters.

If detractors in either party want to continue characterizing the Obama campaign this way, they will have seriously underestimated both the electorate's hunger for meaningful change in how the nation is governed and the candidate himself.

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive.

On poverty, he eschewed the phrase "war on poverty," preferring instead to describe the task as a long-haul effort. No one should launch a program, fight a battle and declare mission accomplished, he seemed to say.

Instead, it will require continuous and unflagging efforts along several fronts - taxation, education, economic development and, yes, personal responsibility - to make progress. He speaks of strengthening the middle class, helping with child care, early childhood education and ensuring access to affordable health care.

In other words, a broad, nuanced approach that recognizes that problems are linked to others.

Similarly nuanced answers came from questions on manufacturing, trade, school choice, the Great Lakes and energy.

He spoke of turning to alternative energy, not just to wean addiction from oil but to spur more technologies that in turn spur more manufacturing possibilities. We can find "competitive advantages at higher value products," he said, adding that rebuilding much needed infrastructure also can create jobs.

He was a realist, recognizing that no one could likely turn the clock back to Milwaukee's manufacturing heyday. "The percentage of manufacturing jobs to service jobs is not going to be the same as it was in the 1950s," he said. "We're not going to get those jobs back."

Yet he insisted that manufacturing still could become more competitive and the service industry better-paying for its employees. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Missouri was tight as a tick and has a different vibe than Wisconsin....plus the huge endorsement of the state senator...and Feingold has stayed MUM.... I'm just sayin...don't get all excited about the cheeseland...it could be trouble.

I LOVE Wisconsin. My peeps are there.

Just sayin...could be trouble.

Be prepared.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

WP4112, Missouri was a primary. 11% black population only 21% have a college degree. How will you dismiss that one?

Stop with the race-baiting and fear-mongering. You've been proven wrong so many times this morning since WI is the only state in the country with two Jewish senators.

I, like Barack, have faith in the American people, a faith that has been borne out by the results to date. Sure, there are some people out there who will never vote for a black man. But are enough who will.

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Now, if the Green Bay Gazette endorsed Barack, I'd feel better about his chances. As it is, there are two political letters to the editor in today's Gazette and they are both for Clinton. Not a good sign.

Only 4500 showed up at the GreenBay rally. Again, not the 20,000 that showed up at Madison.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I think negative ads just reinforce Clinton's negatives.

The argument that Clinton won the blue states and therefore is a stronger candidate in the general election is ludicrous. The blue states will go Democratic. Presidential elections are decided by independent swing voters. These voters prefer Obama over Clinton by huge majorities. Clinton is anathema in swing states and the states like Virginia and Colorado that appear to be moving from red to blue.

I also find the battle tested theme amusing - she is basically saying there is so much dirt on her that there will be no surprises and, of course, implying that there is lots of hidden dirt on Obama.

I never voted for Bill Clinton and I never voted for Bush II. I will not vote for HRC under any circumstances. I lean towards McCain but am not convinced. If HRC is the Democratic nominee I will vote for McCain.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"I guess that would mean if Hillary loses, Wisc would go from being mildly racist to mildly misogynist."

LOL. No. That would just reflect that they really can smell bad cheese even in a pretty package.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Nebraska and Maine were caucuses and that does make a difference.

I'm just sayin...don't be surprised if Wisc comes up short for Barack...it is highly probable.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Interesting stats from Obama's other victories.

I guess that would mean if Hillary loses, Wisc would go from being mildly racist to mildly misogynist.

Posted by: anonthistime | February 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

This has nothing to do with women in power...it has everything to do with the one woman running for office and her proven corrupt past.

Cattle futures. Whitewater. Troopergate. Failed Health initiative, Monica, War vote, Flag-burning vote, Chinese donations, Travelgate, no access to documents at Clinton library, No tax return release, race baiting, Mark Penn, Co-presidency, no FISA vote, negative ads, lies, deceit, fear-mongering.

NOTHING to do with women in power, just THIS woman.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Enough of the cracking wise on Wisconsin, please.

Remember, it is the state that sent Russ Feingold to the Senate.

Obama should do very well there.

Wisconsin is still a relatively clean- government state, and that should work against Hillary.

The issue shouldn't be why doesn't Barack debate (after so many such encounters and two more scheduled), but why Hillary won't release her tax returns unless she is the nominee.

As any good "cheesehead"--ugh, having grown up in Kenosha, I hate the term--knows, you don't "buy a pig in poke."

For all you bi-coastal snobs, it means "to make a risky purchase without inspecting the item beforehand."

MARTIN EDWIN "MICK" ANDERSEN

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Here was BHO at the Dartmouth debate:

"I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. Now we've got to have a process [like the one] back in 1983. We need another one. And I think I've said before everything should be on the table. My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable to the other options that are available. But what's critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem: young people who don't think Social Security is going to be there for them. We should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system, to make sure that that we are being true to those who are already retired, as well as young people in the future. And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people's retirement at the whim of the stock market."

He should run video of his quote, and then video of her non-response, at the same debate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 16, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

WPost4112, says "The reason for Barack's loss in Wisc is simple.Only 6% of the pop is black. Only 22% have a college degree."

Maine has 0.8% black population and only 22.9% have a college degree. I guess that's why Barack lost Maine. Ooops! But he kicked butt in Maine, didn't he?

Nebraska has 4.4% black population and only 23.7% have a college degree. I guess that's why he lost Nebraska. Wait. He beat her like a rented mule in Nebraska.

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I agree whole heartedly with the earlier posting:

"Obama makes "negative" attacks on Hillary in most all his speeches. That is if you call "negative," questioning a person's record. Hillary has every right to question Obama's record. That's hardly negative. God knows the press won't question anything Obama has done. But, if Hillary wears white pants after Labor Day the press attacks her for it."

It's really odd how many people are running to Obama on the hope of a leader who will unite us all, but a leader who hasn't done this in the past and is only now revealing how he will make this happen. I understand the desire to want to be united, but I feel many are operating on blind hope. However, sometimes that's what Americans these days do best.

I'm convinced that many people (both men and women alike) can't see a woman in a position of power, and will do anything to stop Hillary. Honestly, when Hillary speaks out against oil companies, drug companies, and insurance companies we should all recognize the truth in these statements, the courage it takes to be honest on Hillary's part, and the oppression we've all put up with from these companies. But people continue to focus on Hillary's looks or wonder if PMS will start a war. Very juvenile behavior.

I'm glad to see Hillary fighting so fierce. I think we will all benefit from her Presidency. The fight will make her stronger, although I'm getting sick of people not taking a hard, critical look at Obama. I feel they'd find false promises, lots of character and potential, but nothing that can be delivered on yet. Stick with Hillary for awhile Obama (VP?), you've got allot to learn.

Posted by: newsensations | February 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Of all the countless themes/slogans Hillary has tried on during this campaign, "battle-tested" is the lamest one. "Never mind my policies, my baggage, and my negatives. I've been through a lot."

IMHO, she's going to have short "coattails" if she's the nominee, and has a lesser chance than Obama of enlarging the Democratic majorities in Congress. Thus, if she's elected -- unlikely, since she'll energize the GOP base like no Republican candidate can -- considering her negatives, she'll have a short honeymoon and a tough time getting anything done.

Posted by: jac13 | February 16, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Judge - I agree with your comment and must think this is why when she was asked during the forums, she refused to put any ideas "on the table" about SS.

She is taking the old bet that SS is the third rail of American politics, but she is doing us a disservice.

Each candidate should be educating the American people, as FDT tried to do in his somnolent campaign, that medicare/medicaid is a looming fiscal catastrophe, in four years, followed in our lifetimes by social security.

As the ratio of retired-to-working steeply increases, these entitlements become larger than our entire current federal budget, in short order.

Perhaps seeing that FDT got nowhere talking about it entices the others to pander and forget to tell us the bad news and how to address it.

In fact, BHO said he supported raising the cap on SS payroll taxes, but would not take anything off the table, a responsible position.

HRC refused to even put anything on the table. From the Dartmouth debate:
"I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with."

Irresponsible.




Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 16, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"WPost4112 says Wisconsin voters won't vote for a black, latino or Jew. Please explain how they are represented by Senators Kohl and Feingold?"

You got me there.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

WPost4112 says Wisconsin voters won't vote for a black, latino or Jew. Please explain how they are represented by Senators Kohl and Feingold?

Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | February 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The reason for Barack's loss in Wisc is simple.

Only 6% of the pop is black.
Only 22% have a college degree.

So you have a overwhelmingly large white population, mostly with a high school degree, and $40K median income in a historically conservative state.

His rally in Milwaukee drew only 4000.
His rally in Madison (a huge university town with completely different demographics than the rest of the state) drew 14,000.

He's gonna lose and might lose big. Clinton is underplaying it.

Will be a setback, but recovery is both possible and probable.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 09:30 AM

The shock would not be Hillary winning the nomination. That was expected from the outset.

What will be fun to watch is Republicans using all the youtube stuff out there, and more, to demolish her in November.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Go Hillary! Do whatever it takes to win. As Pres. Truman said "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".

This is mild politics people. Stop whining already. This is NOTHING compared to what the rethuglican attack machines will do.

Hillary is battle tested, battle ready, the best candidate the Dems could have. She's the most qualified & electable candidate in the race of any party.

Hillary Clinton wins in the big states that are must wins for the Dems in November. Ohio LOVES Hillary and no candidate can win the Presidency without winning Ohio. Obama loses to McCain in Ohio polls while Hillary polls well against McCain. It's that simple. Hillary can win in the big states that are must wins for the Dems in November and Obama can not. Hillary is the strongest candidate in the race. VOTE SMART! VOTE HILLARY!!

ROCK ON HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TAH1 | February 16, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

expect the unexpected


I will remind everyone that in the potomac primaries, obama was sposed to cruise to vicory in Maryland, and clinton thought they could come colse in Virginia,
and the result was a blowout ... worse for clinton in Va than md!!!

I see no reason why clinton should ever win another state!!

Posted by: pvogel88 | February 16, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"I guess that means that Wisc. will accept a light colored AA but not one of a darker hue.

Of course we know that everyone of German decent has a copy of Mein Kampf on the table next to the bed."

LOL. Possibly and doubtful.

Another fact. Only 22% of the population went beyond high school. 15% never made it past grade school. Not a good demographic for Barack.

Like I said, he'll probably lose this battle but win Texas. Just better to be prepared for the temporary setback than shocked.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Judging from the polls and the fact that they've remained fairly stable (all two of them, so far), I think there is a chance Hillary will win Wisconsin -- or come close, which is probably just as good for her. I don't see an Obama blowout coming here, although we didn't see one coming before SC, either. The weekend will tell a lot; she's just getting there (which makes the "ducking debates" ad laughable), while he's been there all week. (One interesting thought -- maybe being there in person will drive her numbers down: prolonged exposure does opposite things for the two of them, as the prior primaries, like VA, have shown.)

Down the road, I agree that if she loses either Ohio or Texas -- Texas is the better chance for Obama -- she's toast. But remember that, according to MSNBC's numbers, even if she wins them both, and Pennsylvania, she has to win something like 57% of the remaining delegates to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and the superdelegates are already falling away from her (another one in Iowa yesterday).

As for her ad, typical hypocrisy, especially considering the tiresome "no specifics" charge she's been making against Obama. She's doing a total punt on Social Security, saying she'll set up a "blue-ribbon commission" (maybe the thousandth one) to make recommendations. Obama has said he wants to raise the cap on SS withholding, with maybe a "donut-hole" for families in the $100-200K range, and that he'd consider cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. Pretty specific, and pretty courageous, actually. I don't know what a commission is going to say; there are only three moving parts here -- the cap, the retirement age, and the amount of the benefits.

On it goes!

Posted by: jac13 | February 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Be prepared to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home. Their disingenuous attempt to seat the bogus delegates from FL & MI is utterly nauseating. Cheating, lying, distorting, triangulating are all second nature to the Clintons. Their arrogant sense of entitlement and ruthless determination to extend the Bush/Clinton dynasty at any cost should make all Americans turn their collective backs in disgust.

The Clintons epitomize the broken, dysfunctional status quo. For sixteen, long years they have fueled the rabid, polarizing partisan division that has crippled Washington.

Barack Obama represents the opportunity to reject the failed politics of the past and unite Americans around an uplifting, inspirational vision for the future. Those, whom have never felt a reason worth participating in the political process, are supporting Barack in record, unprecedented numbers. They have found in Barack Obama a candidate worthy of believing in. He is a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion with the strength to take on the political machines that are determined to destroy his message of hope and unity.

Our nation is at a historic crossroad, facing enormous challenges both at home and across the world. It is time to seize this moment in history, look to the future with an optimistic, unyielding resolve and make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Posted by: ccoblas | February 16, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

"Mildly racist?" wpost4112

I guess that means that Wisc. will accept a light colored AA but not one of a darker hue.

Of course we know that everyone of German decent has a copy of Mein Kampf on the table next to the bed.

Posted by: anonthistime | February 16, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Please, do indulge, sista' Hillary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac&NR=1


(DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE ALLERGIC TO HUMOR)

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

"to make a general assumption that someone will not vote for someone based on race...is as closed minded and bigoted as what you are suggesting.
Even if you're writing this comment for shock value..it's really tasteless"

Nothing shock value about it. It's just fact. I've spent a lot of time in Wisconsin, from Milwaukee to Eagle River, and as lovely as many of the people are there, I know that many of them will never vote for a Black, Latino or Asian....or Jew. Many live in very homogeneous white communities with strong German ancestry. It's less about them being close-minded as being exposed to very little diversity in their day-to-day lives.

As I said, watch the returns and exit polls.

It may be unpleasant, but no less true.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is wrestling with a strategy paradox: She can cede Wisconsin and suffer a big loss that accellerates Obama's momentum. Or she can campaign in WI and risk pumping up the turnout and margins for Obama as she apparently did in VA (comapred to MD where she kept a low profile and lost by less).

Having chosen to contest WI, she has no choice other than to go negative. Her managers learned that a largely positive campaign as in VA nets her nothing as the voters already are highly familiar with whatever positives she has to offer and there's nothing additional she has to market to them.

This is, of course, a big gamble. If it backfires, she's toast. If it succeeds, she lives to contest the remaining states but her candidacy grows ever more divisive, making the nomination less of a prize for whomever receives it. Pity.

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

Obama makes "negative" attacks on Hillary in most all his speeches. That is if you call "negative," questioning a person's record. Hillary has every right to question Obama's record. That's hardly negative. God knows the press won't question anything Obama has done. But, if Hillary wears white pants after Labor Day the press attacks her for it.

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

About the second ad:

Mrs. Clinton, could you use your southern "jive" accent, please. The ceremonious words spoken in queennese in this ad just don't hit the nail in the head. Wisconsinese is also a thought you should milk for all its worth!

I regally disapprove of your undisguised tone deaf queenly delivery.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I think she's got a good chance of winning Wisconsin. It's a fairly conservative, mildly racist state. Lots of Germans. Perfect for her kind of misleading negative message.

But everyone will know she won dirty.

====
to make a general assumption that someone will not vote for someone based on race...is as closed minded and bigoted as what you are suggesting.
Even if you're writing this comment for shock value..it's really tasteless

Posted by: badger3 | February 16, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's ads are like throwing cr@p into a fan. It ends up back on her.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | February 16, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Well, the fact remains that Barack has to outsmart her. If he can't outsmart her and win, how will he outsmart and win the general or when he's up against Putin et al?

The games have begun. Let the best person win.

No cake walk for anyone this time.

What can be frustrating is that Barack plays a quiet game...no narcissistic drama like the Clintons. But he's definitely got game.

This is going to be decided in Pennsylvania...just as the first civil war was...Gettysburg 2. A turning point...it will be bloody, but I predict Barack will emerge victorious and will firmly if graciously redefine the contest for the general election, just as Abe did for the war.

Wisconsin is just a battle, one which he will probably lose. But the war? Bet on the guy with big ears.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

CAN SHE, WOULD SHE, COULD SHE?

Maybe next election cycle, the 2012 election cycle, that is...

"At this point, this campaign is really about Barack Obama now. He's still not as well known. Her job really is to define him," he said. Until now, Obama's financial edge has not allowed her to do that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503321.html

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 16, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

The negative adds really show the desperation in Clinton camp, they know that Obama has too many positives and can't beaten straight up. She doesn't have great record in senate to run on, she has the most negative ratings almost comparable to Bush. So she is using old trick in politics, hide your past as much as possible and the only way to do that is keep attacking your opponent. So I fully expect the Clinton attack machine to keep churning these attacks until the end. Don't kid yourself people by saying that we can see through the negative adds, most people in up coming states will have their opinion effected by them, its proven through many many studies, negative adds work.

Posted by: dewanitum | February 16, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Since Bill is Hillary's biggest negative, I'd ride on her plane if I were him....

Posted by: SJobs | February 16, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

These two ads are fine pieces of snark Nothing else, except they show what Hillary will do to win (hint: everything) and what she will not do (hint: nothing) to win.

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Pretty amazing, for that surely is not cheap. However I would imagine that they have to win WI (to keep public opinion in her direction), or face a potential devastating defeat in Texas:

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

Posted by: davidmwe | February 16, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

I liked the second ad quite a bit. We need to see more of that in this campaign rather than falling for that "class-based warfare" chesnut the R's like to trot out.

The first ad is 2/3 hyperbole and 1/3 substance. Much less to like. Why the Clinton campaign thinks that fiscal conservancy and responsible stewardship of social security is a BAD thing is a real puzzler. In an eerie parallel to Bush, this ad says that HRC would not be able to make hard choices and would just pass the buck.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 16, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

LOL. No. I have a ton of relatives in Wisconsin...all Germans...even some OpusDei believers...and a cousin who is a top reporter at the Milwaukee Journal.

Spent many a day among the Germanfolk in cheeseland.

Just watch the returns.

They gonna buy the Clinton shtick. All except Madison.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

wpost4112...that's a horrible comment about Wisconsin. Are you yet another of the Bi-Coastally Biased?

Posted by: al_jal | February 16, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

I think she's got a good chance of winning Wisconsin. It's a fairly conservative, mildly racist state. Lots of Germans. Perfect for her kind of misleading negative message.

But everyone will know she won dirty.

Texas most likely goes big for Obama and that's all she wrote.

Pennsylvania too...a shocker.

but, this year, nothing's for certain.


Posted by: wpost4112 | February 16, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

I will be surprised if Wisconsin voters fall for her nagative, and hard to swallow, ads about the debate issue. At least the press is noting the fact that her accusations make no sense.

Posted by: dyork | February 16, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company