Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Jim Moran to Endorse Obama Today

Tim Craig

U.S. Rep. James P. Moran, a Democrat who represents the inner suburbs in Northern Virginia, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today, sources said.

Moran, who has represented the 8th District since 1991, is scheduled to appear at an Obama town hall meeting this afternoon in Alexandria to announce his choice.

Moran's decision means all three Democratic congressmen from Virginia have lined up behind Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.)

By Tim Craig  |  February 10, 2008; 12:27 PM ET
Categories:  Election 2008/President , Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Scenes from the JJ Dinner
Next: Obama Greets Supporters in Alexandria


"Moran's decision means all three Democratic congressmen from Virginia have lined up behind Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.)"

To capture her "major prize," Virginia, Sen. Clinton isn't counting on endorsements but instead relying on what Donna Brazile calls the Clinton "institutional" advantages.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at

Posted by: steven4 | February 10, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

At the Jefferson Jackson dinner last night. Clinton had to deliver her speech as the results for Nebraska and Washington came in. During her speech, Louisiana was called as well. Plainly stated, it was a tough night for Hillary.

I estimate that 60-70% of those in attendance were Obama supporters. We totally overwhelmed the Hillary crowd but we clapped and supported Hillary when she spoke.

When Obama came out, it was incredible. The crowd went crazy.

Obama will win by at least 7 points (51 Obama - 43 Clinton).

Posted by: Coming Awakening | February 10, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at"

Sorry steven4. While I like Hillary, there's no way Obama supporters will be able to enthusiastically support her. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity here. While we'll walk the streets and knock on doors for Obama, it's nothing more than a "push the chad" for Hillary and walk away with no emotional involvement. I sincerely hope we take the chance for greatness.

Posted by: amaikovich | February 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama is living the American dream. Poor black fatherless son-of-an-immigrant turned undisputed king of hope and optimism, as well as the next president of the United States of America. It's a good year to be American.

Posted by: brian | February 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I actually switched from Obama to Hillary.

Obama's rhetoric is enticing at first, but once I got beyond the surface, I found that I couldn't vote for him anymore.

I just don't see the passion for the issues in him that I see in Hillary. He has begun saying, "if you want to see issues, look at my website". But his people write that stuff. I want to see that he knows the issues and feels strongly about them.

I just never saw that. On many issues, he seems ill-informed.

Also, I don't think he stacks up well against McCain. He is the most liberal US Senator according to National Journal. Hillary is 16th. 32nd in 2006.

His arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, his driver's licenses for illegals, his proposal to increase the payroll tax, etc., None of these will serve him well in the general election.

Also, his wins are coming in the South from the black vote, and red state caucuses from liberal elite votes (working people can't take 2 or 3 hours to go caucus). I don't think those victories are representative of the general election.

In swing states that matter, Missouri, New Mexico, etc, while Obama wins the Liberal-elite, Hillary wins the moderates. Those are the votes the Dems will need against a centrist McCain.

I fear that if the Dems put Obama in as their candidiate, he will be a John Kerry Part II.

These are some of the reasons I am voting for Hillary next week.

Posted by: Steve | February 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Just the opposite for me. She is so polarizing that she totally galvanizes the other side.

She will have no chance in red states. She is using division to get the nomination and will lose alot of the base in the general

Posted by: Linda from DC | February 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Steve, sorry to hear you switched, but since you did it once, you'll likely be able to do it again. If you're comparing the two on issues...Hillary thinks she already knows all the answers. Obama claims that by motivating the voting population to get involved, the issues will find solutions. If you were to talk to him on politics you'd probably find he could bore you with the same policy wonk talk as Hillary. But it's hard to imagine a policy talk in front of a stadium filled with 20,000 (Seattle). His positions demonstrate an openness for change and to look at things outside of the partisan prism.

Posted by: Nate | February 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Steve, while I might not agree with your conclusions, I can see where we might disagree. Except for one: "I just don't see the passion for the issues in him." If you want to see passion, just go to a caucus or Obama speech on the trail. You'll see people lined up outside. In my 30+ years of voting, I've never seen anything like it. The passion is with the people and it flows directly from him.

Posted by: amaikovich | February 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I've found both candidates amazing. I kind of wish I could combine the strength of both into one. Currently I am supporting Clinton and I heard that Obama believes he can pick up all of Hillary's supporters. I'm not that sure that he can nor that I can support him...and it has more to do with the way his campaign has been run, especially the extremely negative comments from many of his supporters about Hillary. Labeling the Clintons racist was the ultimate and just recently hearing another media (MSNBC) having to apologize for lableing the Clinton's daughter as being "pimped" by her parents. Why should it be right to allow this kind of dialogue and why are the supporters of Obama so silent when this occurs? His was supposedly the candidacy and campaign of the possitive.

I could easily vote for McCain and I know that the key voting demographics in America, the older voters can easily vote for McCain. Obama has been extremely weak in delivering this demographic. And McCain would still be a big improvement over Bush.

Posted by: Tim | February 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that a candidate should not just be judged on his positions, but also their ability to carry out their promises.

I fear that the Clinton campaign is trying to win using the old constituency. When she loses states, her campaign feels that those states aren't necessary for her to win. If Clinton wins 51 - 49 in the Presidential election, she will have no mandate to pass her agenda.

Obama has a chance to get a big margin and get more of his agenda passed.

Posted by: David | February 10, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

In the last gubernatorial election in Massachusetts, I voted for a bright young African American whose main message was hope. Deval Patrick was elected despite his inexperience in holding elective office or in managing large systems. He has turned out to be a major disappointment. His first few months of office were remarkable for some egregious mistakes caused by poor judgement and lack of experience. His latest move is to try to balance his hopeful and unrealistic plans on the backs of the poor. Namely, he is touting the creation of three large casino areas for creating funds. As a psychologist, I know too well that gambling addictions will increase and that those of lesser means will unsuccessfully trust luck to provide a windfall. Governor Patrick is a friend and supporter of Senator Obama whose message of hope is delivered without substance. I am also concerned about the Senator's proclivity to claim a greater role than deserved both as a community organizer and as a promoter of meaningful legislation. My primary vote was for Senator Clinton and I shall not support Senator Obama if he should win the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: Elizabeth D. Brown | February 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Thanks,Steve, for making my day. The country needs more Democrats like you to stop drinking the Kool-Aid that makes people passionate about an ambitious newcomer with no actual leadership achievements on the national or international stage.

Every DC and Virginia primary voter who still has an open mind should watch the video of the interview with the editors of the Reno Gazette-Journal back in January. Forget about listening to scripted speeches by this master crowd-pleaser. Watch Obama all alone with people who hold some power over his future and decide whether if this were a job interview (which it was) you would put this man in charge of the company you own or work for.

Here's the link:

Here's a transcript excerpt:

"I...I didn't come of age in the battles of the 60s...I'm not as invested in 'em...and so I think I talk differently about issues and I think I talk ... uh...differently about values and...that's... why...umm...I think we've been resonating ... with the American people...uh...I think...uh, uh...and by the way...when I say this sometimes, it's, it's interepreted as I don't think that anybody who's a baby-boomer should be president, that's not what I'm saying...what I'm saying is, is that ... umm... I think the average baby-boomer has moved beyond alot of the arguments of the 60s but our politicians haven't....we're still having the same arguments, you know. It's all around culture wars...and it's all ...and even when you discuss war, you know, the frame of reference is all Vietnam...well...that's not my frame of know my frame of reference is "what works"!...uh..and my...uh...even when I first opposed the war in first line was, "I don't oppose all wars" know...uh, uh...specifically to make clear that it is not just a know, uh....70s love-in ... kind of approach...rather that I thought strategically it was a mistake for us to go in"

And just exactly what were those "battles of the 60s and 70s" that Obama so proudly distances himself from? Only the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the anti-war movement!

Vote Hillary, who remembers those who struggled and died to make America better!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the previous posting by amaikovich.

The difference we've seen and felt on the streets, at the rallies, and during our conversations at our neighbors front doors has been one of excitement, enthusiam and hope.

Not the hope of the uninformed and naive, but the hope of folks who recognize that Obama is honest, intelligent, and capable of uniting a huge majority of Americans behind his leadership to change our national direction and priorities. Obama is the Democrat that can soundly defeat the staus quo in Washington.

Most of these folks - our neighbors - and those we see at the rallies are not experts on specific domestic policies. They have not taken the time to understand the subtle differences between one proposal or another.

They are just willing to believe that Obama does not lie - and when he says that he will bring universal healthcare to them - they trust that he will.

To those that do raise specific questions about competing healthcare proposals...I remind them that Presidents can propose but it is the Congress that crafts the language and detailed specifics of all major legislation.

They realize that no one candidate's proposal will ever come into being as law in exactly the same way as a president might have proposed it should.

They see that all the fuss and froth about healthcare policy differences is just campaign talk. After the election, Congress will spell out the specifics.

What really matters is that we have a Democrat in the White House who can turn the page on all the lies, deceit and backroom deals of previous administrations and, a veto-proof Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

If they can help us do that...we will get an economic turnaround, healthcare legislation and environmental rationality, after we get serious about a War in Iraq that has drained the resources needed to find and kill alQeada and secure our ports against terrorist sneak attacks - something that the Bush administration has proven totally inept at accomplishing.

And so, to my friends, family and colleagues in Virginia...I ask that you get out on Tuesday and vote in one of the most significant elections of our lifetimes.

Do not leave anything to chance. Send a message - loud and clear.

Vote on Tuesday for change that we can believe in.

Posted by: Gandalfthegrey | February 10, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I am having a hard time choosing my candidate between Hillary, Obama and McCain.

I know that if the U.S. is attacked both Obama and Hillary will put on their sneakers and turn and run as fast as humanly possible in the opposite direction. In a foot race I believe Obama would beat Hillary by quite a bit so I guess I might have to support him. Although I believe that McCain would do something that no Democrat has done in office since FDR and that is actually defend the American people and not humiliate them in front of the whole world by turning and running like a bunch of ridiculous cowards. So I guess if I have to decide, since we are in a war I will pick the candidate that bests supports the men and woman that support our freedoms, so I will vote for McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama can win Virginia in the Fall; Clinton can't. Obama has the power to sway states that would normally fall to the Republicans; Clinton can't. Obama will increase Democratic turnout, resulting in victories in the 9 key Senate races this year; Clinton can't.

Obama can change American politics and sweep out the nasty politics of the last 2 decades. The Clintons embody the nasty politics of the last two decades, with the Bushes taking the other side of this dynastic struggle.

Obama: Yes We Can.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Always nice to hear from you right-wing trolls.

Posted by: lydgate | February 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Some of Obama's supporters, the reporters at MSNBC, the Kennedys and Oprah have detracted from his message. Having people transported in the mere presence of Obama makes him appear to be the object of a giddy crowd of unquestioning "true believers." True believers in what? I am waiting for him to put some flesh on the words. So far, Hillary is inspiring me with plain language of details. The more I see, the better Hillary appears.

Posted by: Shannon | February 10, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I support Hillary simply because she is better on the substance. Her policies are more detailed, more concrete and more coherent. If that makes her a less exciting candidate so be it. At least I will be able to hold her accountable for her failures. What I don't like about Obama is that he builds his campaign not around policies but around emotions. He has promised a change but could you please explain to me what that means precisely? His campaign is not a political campaign but rather a popular movement. I have personally experienced political popular movements in other countries and I chose to stay away from them. They are overwhelming, can often escape into empty idealism and most importantly thay can easily become irrationally aggressive. These kind of movements do not run only on the ideals but they also like to have "personal" targets. It may be easy for Obama to run this campaign in this way now when he has plenty of people who don't like Hillary. However, can you be sure that these people will be so enthusiastic once Hillary is out of the picture? Unlikely. On the other hand, Hillary has a strong but stable base (who will not necessarily switch to Obama, especially older voters). I also find it difficult to believe that Obama can mach McCain, especially in the red states. Just look at the structure of the votes in the south. Even now running against Hillary he can capture only less than a third of white voters and Latinos. This will get even less against McCain. Moreover, just wait to see when Republicans start pulling out his dirty laundry (an he is certainly not a saint) in a way Hillary cannot because of the party loyalty (i.e. superdelegates). Then we will see whether the so called independents stay faithful to Obama and his message of change or switch to the "straight shooter".

Posted by: sego | February 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004. This year, I'm voting for Obama if the Democrats are smart enough to nominate him. I have donated more to his campaign than I have to any other candidate. While Hillary may be a policy wonk (I don't buy her "35 years of experience" line), I would like have the Hillary supporters specify the independent and moderate constituencies that she will be able to reach out to in order to make real change in this country. The fact of the matter is that they can't say how she would do it because she is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. Only the Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this year and if they nominate Hillary, McCain will win in a landslide.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

By steven4
"Regarding 16 year plan"

This guy is a Hillary supporter who wants Hillary as the nominee and Obama as Veep. Don't sign his petition, it clearly says Clinton-Obama ticket not Obama-Clinton. we want Obama to win the nomination and select anyone but Hillary for Veep.

Posted by: Worstplan | February 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Being president is more than having the ability to speak softly and carry a big stick. It is about trust. I sure don't trust Hillary. She says she will represent us, the people, but how can she do what she says? We all don't think alike, we all don't want the same thing. And, the foreign leaders surely don't want what we want, so how can she do what she professes to do? No, my dear readers, I'm afraid she is just saying what she thinks will get people to vote for her. In the end, she and Bill will probably do what they have always done: Just what they want to do. And, her campaign put out that she "loaned" the campaign $5 million, then reported that loan that had spurred about $8 million to come in. What I want to know is why didn't she "give" the $5 million to the campaign? Mitt Romney gave $35 million to his campaign; he did not "loan" it to the campaign. Hillary wants others to give, but for her money, she "loaned" it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Armyvet | February 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Sego, do you honestly think the Clintons are holding back on attacking Obama and "airing his dirty laundry" because of loyalty to the DNC? You have to be joking.

Posted by: KAM3 | February 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Would you rather have Obama as president, setting forth the vision and energizing popular support for it, and Clinton doing the nitty-gritty of working it through the senate, or the other way around? Clinton is probably a more effective senator than Obama; Obama could be a magically transforming president.

Posted by: Fijik | February 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

It's disingenuous to argue that you may not be able to support Obama based on the "negative campaign" he has run. You blame his supporters for supposedly making distasteful comments about the Clintons.

First of all, the MSNBC anchor was out of line, and Obama's spokesman said so. He said there was "no room in this campaign for that kind of language". So, to say the campaign has "remained silent" on these sorts of attacks is incorrect, especially in this case. This is, of course, not to mention that the anchor in question is not actually working on the Obama campaign, but anchoring a news show. Big difference.

Furthermore, have you been hanging out on these message boards lately? Because Hillary's supporters have said (among other things) that Obama is a coke-head, a drug dealer, a liar, the "n-word", an empty suit, and a terrorist, and have called his supporters fools, racists, cult members, brainwashed, and young idiots. I will not deny that some Obama supporters have said some pretty nasty things about Hillary, but really, there has been a great deal of venom coming from her side, as well. And it is important to mention that a good amount of the "attack" posts against both candidates have obviously come from Republicans.

Also, wasn't it Bill Clinton that brushed off Obama's tremendous victory in South Carolina by saying, "well, Jesse Jackson won here, too", apropos of nothing that he had been asked? Anybody who saw that particular comment as anything other than an attempt by Camp Clinton to label Obama as "the black candidate" who would appeal only to black voters is ignoring the blatantly obvious.

To be quite honest with you, I have observed a great deal more negative campaigning coming from Clinton. Supporters on both sides have obviously lowered the level of discourse at times, but if we are looking purely at the campaigns and their official spokespersons, it is clear who has done more negative campaigning. And it isn't Obama.

If you think Hillary will make a better president based on her stances on issues, her plans for dealing with them, and her political strategy, by all means do so. But please don't base your decision on a misguided interpretation of the way the campaigns have been run.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

It seems as if those skeptics sitting on the fence between Obama and Hillary have certain commonalities:

Those who give into fear and doubt decide to vote for Hillary. These folks tend to say, well a lot of people won't vote for a black man, so neither can I. He is too young and experienced, so I will vote for another old, white person who has spent much of her life in governing mansions.

Those who are brave enough to hope for something better decide to vote for Obama. These folks believe we should aim for the best than merely settle for what's conventional.

You cannot deny the thousands of crowds of young and old, black and white, working class and higher-educated, first time voters and retirees, dems, repubs and independents. You cannot deny the nearly million individuals that have donated to him so far, even a simple 5 dollar donation.

It's time to turn the page. There have been only 2 last names as President since I was born.

Posted by: Anna, San Francisco | February 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

No KAM3 I am certainly not joking. Just look carefully at their campaigns and you will see that both candidates tend to stay away from negative attacks. The party superdelgats are the reason. Supers have showed a tendency to move to that candidate who is better on running a positive campaign. They don't want to see a war within the party since that is ultimately harmful to their personal interests. Hence, both will tend to stay a way from pulling out the dirty laundry.

Posted by: sego | February 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm one of those people that Hillary's polarizing effect will keep from voitng for her. While Obama is way to centrist for this old leftie, I'd vote for him in the general election. Not so for Hillary, who loved the war, the patriot act, NAFTA, oppressive bankrupcy reform.. and the list goes on and on. Obama may be another corporate shill, but he's not as hopelessly compromised as Hillary and hubby.

Posted by: Lawrence Austin | February 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I think it really comes down to one point - Which Democratic candidate can beat John McCain?

So let's view the obvious points:
- Hillary has the experience over Obama
- Hillary has the negative baggage from the Clinton years
- Hillary speaks with more substance in her speeches
- Hillary will clearly be attacked on her Iraq war stance, which was similar to McCain's.
- Hillary unfortunately can not convert Republican and/or Independents to vote for her like Obama can.
- Hillary has not won in many of the red states like Obama has.
- Hillary is polarizing, Obama is inclusive of all parties.

Bottom Line: If Hillary is selected as the Democratic nomination, she will engergized the Republican party to win at all cost, despite the fact that they are not thrilled about McCain, because one thing is certain.... They HATE the CLINTONS and it will be DIRTY politics as usual heading into the general election.

I think in the end, to accomplish anything in Washington, it requires compromise and openness.... The Clintons and Republicans do not share those characterics!!!...

Posted by: Anita | February 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I am not voting for the Clintons because of the scandals this country has been through with the Clintons: Marc Rich Money for Pardon Scandal, Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal, license suspended for unethical behavior, lying under oath (felon). Please google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results, that is the horrible legacy of the Clintons. Should people with this kind of rap sheet be governing our country? Are we that short of good leaders. This is a link to a new Clinton Scandal that is still brewing, ABC 20/20 report:

We need to turn the page, we are done with the scandals and the Clintons. I don't want Bill Clinton and Hugh Rodham back inside the seat of power, selling pardons to wealthy felons. Friends, if integrity, ethics, morals matter to you, vote to reject the Clintons - Vote McCain, Vote Obama

Posted by: Jimmy | February 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, it is no wonder Elizabeth that you are disappointed with Deval Patrick he learned his sense of ethics and largesse under the Clintons. Am I correct in my understanding that the Clintons campaigned for Patrick? Which begs the question, why would someone who was the recipitent of the Clintons political backing choose Obama over Hillary?

Posted by: ovcatto | February 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons continue to play the race card against Obama. I suggest you all read Frank Rich's op-ed piece on It's not black/white racism but black/hispanic racisim. The Clintons are promoting a distrust of blacks by hispanics that does not exist. I think we will see Obama picking up more and more hispanics. Obama's church that the right wing talk shows have been accusing of being racist has its start in South and Central America.
PS:Steve, Obama aquitted himself admirably against Hillary the policy wonk in the LA Debate. He knows and can handle the issues.

Posted by: Robert | February 10, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

A 52 minute policy discussion with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle.
Obama has plenty of substance to his ideas and policies:

Posted by: Mariposa Cooke | February 10, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

did moran forget that little black kid who had a toy gun and moran said he tried to mug him, called the black kid a thug, imagine that...I remember when he backed hillary...

Posted by: dwight | February 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Virginia isn't typically one of the "significant" states in the primary season, and so I typically refrain from being too involved until after the conventions. Since this year is different, I have had to do my homework a lot sooner.

I too was initially caught up in the Obama sway - who else in the history of politics has been able to motivate the younger generations to take an active interest in politics? The truth, though, is that part of what made Obama so appealing to the younger generations was his shameless attempts to woo them on Myspace and other networking sites. I mean, he made it appear as though he was actually interested in what today's youth had to say. He even offered himself up for a dinner with individuals who won competitions on his myspace page. Could you imagine Hillary or John McCain doing such a thing?

It's no secret that Obama has the ability to "move" people - that's what he was trained to do when he was working as a community "agitator" in the seventies. Tell the people what they want to hear - get them invested. He makes them wonderful promises of change. Sure, it all sounds so nice, doesn't it? But what does he have in the way of experience to back it up? He spent one year in the Senate before running for President. Since running, he has barely attended any Senate sessions or submitted any votes on the matters before the Senate. He doesn't even care enough to do the job that he was hired to do in the first place!! But yet he is quick to cast aspersions on those who did, in fact, cast votes on the issues before the Senate when he couldn't even be bothered to vote on them!

Who here remembers John Edwards' first campaign for President? Who here remembers how reluctant everyone was to vote for someone with such little experience? And Edwards' experience at that time was substantially greater than Obama's is now!

And Obama himself admits in his past that he was suspicious of "white" people and had a general dislike of them. It's simply amazing to me that someone with those kinds of racists opinions would have even made it this far in the campaign season. Certainly we would be outraged if a white man running for the highest office in our country - and leader of the free world - had admitted that he had a suspicion of or dislike for Blacks!!! Where is our outrage now?!? Why is it different because the person with the racist viewpoints is Black??

Obama has aligned himself with such radicals as Louis Farrakhan - whose views and comments are seen as racist, homophobic, and antisemitic. How is this man even remotely electable??

Now, I have no problem with a President who is proud and supportive of his culture. I have no problem with a President who was educated in Muslim schools and trained in the Quran (in fact, in light of our political climate, such knowledge would prove to be immensely valuable). I do have a problem with the fact that a man who has so openly expressed racist positions is being so blindly embraced by so many Americans.

The Presidency should not be a popularity contest where the cool kid gets elected. There has to be more substance behind the man (or woman) elected into the office than the fact that many of the country's youth like him.

Now, I do not align myself with one political party over another. I consider myself to be a steadfast moderate. I have not made up my mind as to whom I will vote. If Obama gets the nomination for the Democrats, though, my decision will be substantially easier... and McCain looks better and better every day.

Posted by: Jennifer | February 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

the question to ask is will obama put a knife in the blacks back by passing comprehensive immigration reform.
actually, we all know he will, dems get what dems want and dems want hispanics.

Posted by: dwight | February 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

To Elizabeth Brown and Steve: Elizabeth, the fact that you are disappointed in an African American voter for whom you voted in Massachusetts, who happens to support Senator Obama, would make you not vote for him if he is nominated? You make no sense. As far as his record as a community organizer in Chicago and an Illinois legislator, I can attest that his statements as to his record are accurate. I don't know where you get your information in Massachusetts about what Sen. Obama accomplished in Illinois when no one heard of him outside the state. And Steve, the fact that Hillary Clinto has managed to hold a lead in some states among traditional Democrats actually show how vulnerable she would be against McCain. I am very confident that Sen. Obama as well as Sen. Clinton will dominate among traditional Democrats in November. The difference is that Sen. Obama acn attract moderates and independents, and equally importantly, nominating Sen. Clinto is just about the only way to unify the Republicans. She has the highest negatives of any remaining candidate. Do you want to defeat the Republicans in November? Then Sen. Obama is the logical choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with you people? You act like Obama is the second comming when in reality he is the most unqualified to be president since George Bush.Obama hasn't served one term in the senate yet and voted present 118 times when he was a state Rep. which is voting for nothing.This guy is a lite weight whom John McCain and the republican's would draw and quarter.Hillary can take everything the republican machine can throw at her and give it right back to McCain. We don't need another president using training wheels which Obama would be-we've had 7 years of that and it's just about destroyed our country.Obama is a disaster just waiting to happen he preaches change but doesn't tell how or what he would change. If you want John McCain the high tempered old man to be president--nominate Obama.If Obama is the nominee I will not vote for the first time in almost 60 years.I will not be guilty of voting for someone who knows nothing about being president and Obama sure doesn't.

Posted by: clyde | February 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Is Sen. Clinton really for working folk? I don't think so.

Former Pres. Clinton's Sec. of the Treasury Robert Rubin is now a principal advisor and fund raiser to Sen. Clinton.
He and Pres. Clinton engineered the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act (at the urging of Sanford Weill of the CitiGroup). A few days after the repeal, Rubin resigned to work for Weill
at CitiGroup to "earn" tens of millions of dollars. This gutting of banking regulations permitted banks (eg CitiGroup) to bring about the subprime mortgage fiasco and a world wide financial crisis.
Would it be a fair question to ask Sen. Clinton if she is now in favor of government banking oversight, such as an updated Glass-Steagall to prevent future free market abuses.

Posted by: MBrod | February 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse


you implied comment that Barack may hate whites is disgusting. Barack was raised by his white mum and white grandparents. He is a man of many parts, stop peddling divisive lies. As a white mother with mixed race children, I resent your divisive comments. This is part of the reason why I am voting against Hillary - Divisive, Dishonest and power-obsessed. Vote to Reject the Clintons.

Posted by: Ann | February 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Here is my problem with Senator Clinton. First, just like President Bush (the son)she will staff her cabinet and the government with people who ran the government ten years ago. The people and ideas from 1992 and 1996 will not solve the problems of 2008. Senator Clinton is actually a bridge to the past not the future.

Second, I recently read that Senator Clinton's wealth was estimated at approximatley 41 million dollars. Where did all the money come from? She has been U.S. Senator or the First Lady for the last 16 years. Not exactly high paying positions. I think the voters should see her tax returns so we know what we are getting into in the general election.

However, unlike many of the people in these posts. I will never vote for a Republican after supporting this war.

Posted by: neal | February 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Elizabeth - Deval Patrick? You sound like Bill Clinton has been sounding lately; Just because both Patrick and Obama are black doesn't mean that they bring the same skills and experience to the table.

Patrick didn't have any prior elective experience whatsoever before becoming Governor. He wasn't a United States Senator for four years or a state legislator for seven years, as Obama has been.

The claims of Hillary's supposed 35 years of experience, and Obama's supposed lack of experience, are ridiculous. Obama has been a legislator at the state and federal level for more than a decade, longer than Hillary has held elected office.

Moreover, nineteen years of her supposed 35 years of experience were as the first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. While she used that role to champion a handful of causes (and notably failed at getting universal health care done when she was given a real governmental role), being married to an elected official hardly serves as real experience for a President. Does Laura Bush now have eight years of "experience" to be President under her belt?

And it's funny to hear her tout all that she did as first lady while downplaying the role Bill Clinton will have in her presidency. So the presidency's a "lonely job" that she will handle herself, but when her husband was president, she somehow gets credit for whatever he did? Right...

Now, I don't doubt that Hillary is qualified (though I don't buy the "35 years" claim). But Obama is equally qualified, and can actually win against McCain because he's not hated among non-democrats like Hillary is.

Moreover, Obama doesn't take lobbyist money like she does, and he has a non-muddled position on the Iraq war. McCain would tear Hillary up in that debate. She'd be John Kerry part II - for the Iraq war before she was against it, and only having moral high ground on the need for withdrawal. Obama can pin all of the missteps of the war on McCain (and those who voted for it), because he was always against it.

Finally, Obama has outlined specific plans and has stated his specific positions on the issues. If you care to learn, his website has the details: That he gives inspiring speeches doesn't mean he lacks substance or that Hillary has more substance. It just means that he is seizing the opportunity to get the American people behind his vision for the future, which is what a President needs to do to actually turn policies into law.

Posted by: TM7 | February 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I am a Republican and I can tell you, I am not pleased with our obvious nomination, McCain, however if he is up against Hillary, I will definitely back him... However, if he is up against Obama, then I will take a second look, before I back McCain...

Trust me when I say this.... Many, many Republicans are thinking this way!!!... I am very active within the Republican party across the country!!!...

You Democrats have finally delivered a clear-cut WINNER but its sad to say that if ya'll fumble on this, we WILL definitely get a Republican back in the White House.... Just think Karl Rove and his croonies.... They are just waiting to pounce on Hillary!!!... On Obama, they don't know how to handle this guy... HE TRULY IS YOUR WINNER!!!.... But I'm beginning to think you Democrats are really going to screw this up!!!...

Posted by: Anita | February 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Bush is an ignorant US Presidant
Obama if elected will be a spineless President
Another disaster for US

Posted by: JKY | February 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who want to retain the Bush administration for at least four more years, plus maybe appoint a few more judges in the Bush mold, elect McCain. Those who want to wipe out all traces of the Bush influence will put Obama in the White House while we still have some weak semblance of constitutional government left.

Posted by: Bannister | February 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

pls go back & ck out elizabeth d. brown's entry @ 2:12pm; 2/10/08 (sunday).

interesting analysis not mentioned in media. comparisons btwn deval patrick and obama; (partial) assessment of current state of gov patrick's tenure, similarities btwn gov patrick & sen. obama and then how the analysis affects her candidate preferences.

ck it out!


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


I implied nothing. Read Obama's own literature. He himself stated that he resented his white family (including his grandparents who raised him). He spent the better part of his life trying to separate himself from his "white" identity. He has numerous comments in his own book that leads to the conclusion that he is a racist. Read his books, Ann. Read his literature. Read something. Don't just get caught up in the groundswell of support without doing your homework.

Btw, your comment that you're the mother of biracial children leads no credibility to your comments. This isn't a "biracial" issue. The point is we shouldn't have a candidate that has professed racist divisions and ideologies. Just because your family is multicultural doesn't make it okay for us to elect a racist president.

Just do your homework. Whether you vote for Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee is your right. Just make sure that your vote is educated.

Posted by: Jennifer | February 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

If Obama wins the democrate primary, I will not vote for him in the general election, and I will not/can not vote for a republican. Obama has NO backgroung at all. I can not believe the party is so dense

Posted by: Josepht | February 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The post that defined Sen Obama as a *poor, black fatherless child* is the reason I find his candidacy repugnant. Sen Obama was raised by a middle class educated white woman and her parents, both white. He went to the best schools in the country. He is a person who recognizes opportunity and acts on it. I am waiting to hear something of substance out of all the emotion generating demagogary. His candidacy is frightening to those who have observed first hand the results of candidates who wildly move mass audiences and have no history of actual governance.
Mass hysteria is less harmful in the pulpit or on stage.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I don't know why electability is even an issue anymore. Two polls have already been released in the last two weeks--Obama beats McCain, Hillary does not; full stop.

I come from a very Republican family in Missouri, and I can verify that Republicans are willing to give Obama a look (my mom is one of them), whereas they are not willing to vote for Hillary.

So how is Clinton more electable if multiple polls show she is not?

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

There are lots of Republicans for Obama. Can you show me a Republican for Billary? Nope.

When Jim Webb joins Obama on the ticket, it will be a LANDSLIDE with 2 patriots who put AMERICA FIRST.

Posted by: Strategist | February 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

As Hillary Clinton will never ever give up her dream to be President, under no circumstances, she and her friend will fight up to the very bitter end.
We will see mud sliding and all dirty law tricks by the clintons to reach that aim, doesn't matter, what the people will vote for.
Now, Michigan and Florida come on the table, tomorrow is it Howard Dean to solve the problem, as he said. That can only mean, Dean knows it better than we all, that he will tra Obama to step down.
Never Ever will he ask Hillary to step aside, because he knows very much, she will spit on him.

Posted by: seoul | February 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Steve, no will do with Hillary on any ticket. Obama/Richardson? That's works for me/

Posted by: meldupree | February 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"YOU DID IT!" reads HRC's website. "$10,000,000. 100,000 donors since Super Tuesday! Thank you!"

Isn't that special that the staff can get paid and HRC can repay herself the $5M loan. Her staff blames her recent losses (which HRC fails to mention as she makes her stand in TX, OH and PA) on Obama's television and radio advertising. Well, if Hillary had the money, she would have done the same thing; alas, she did not.

This dogfight (which neither Hillary nor Bill expected, I suspect) have taken some interesting twist. Stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages.'

DISCLOSURE: I am an Obama supporter, and Obama and his campaign did not approve of this posting.

Posted by: meldupree | February 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It's clear why voters who closely examine issues choose Hillary Clinton. Why don't Obama fans question his refusal of debates? If they study the facts that will see that his rhetoric rarely aligns with his record or fills in specific plans during his hyped up rallies.

On close examination Obama inconsistencies display his lack of integrity. How can his supporters overlook the fact that his claims that he will bring people together are dangerously similiar to George Bush's campaign pledges- which were also taken on face value by a naive electorate.

Blatant media bias continues to provide Obama with free air time, and then touts the "momentum" of his candidacy. Their latest tact is to broadcast the illusion that Democratic voters will be satisfied with either of these candidates. This could not be further from the truth. Combined with this is emerging media pressure in support of Obama's urge that Super Delegates switch their allegiance - based on the fiction that he is the people's favorite (as if to erase large percentages and entire states that have already voted for Hillary Clinton)!

His supporters are caught in his charismatic chant for change and let's not worry where-or how- he would lead. I am among the many, many informed Democratic voters who would rather stay home on Election Day if he becomes the party's candidate.

Were the Democratic convention to fall into the Obama trance, many vital demographics will be lost and gone come November (including the Latino vote, the senior citizen vote, a large portion of the total female vote, along with the Jewish and Asian vote) Without these demographically proven Hillary supporters, a McCain Presidency (with its 100 year presence in Iraq,etc.) would be a certainty.

So the question really is, will this media driven (unsubstantiated) "faith" of an uninformed electorate once again jeopardize the long awaited potential of the Democratic party to give the Presidency back to the people?

Posted by: jtschetter | February 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama has not won a single major blue state without the overwhelming support of the black community...we're talking 80 percent and they have been voting in much greater numbers to vote for one of their own. Not surprising. In addition, the very liberal Dean machine has had a lot to do with this. Jim Dean, head of Democracy for America, and his brother Howard Dean, head of the DNC, are ecstatic over Obama's victories and Democracy for America sends thousands of workers and millions of dollars to support Obama. You should see the emails I've received from them patting themselves on the back for assisting in the wins for Senator Obama. I used to be a member until they starting campaigning for Senator Obama. I don't think it's good to split the Democratic party at this time. Is this a coincidence that Howard Dean's brother is supporting Obama? Nothing in politics is a coincidence. They are trying to destroy the base of the Democratic party so the left wing can take over. Dean could not do that in 2004. The press is helping Howard Dean this time (probably unwittingly) instead of wiping him out with "the scream" as in 2004. I think the entire Democratic party needs to know what's going on here. The Dean Machine has been sending thousands of people (as well as the very liberal to help Obama in the caucus states and in the southern primary states. They can effect a victory in the caucuses much better than in a real primary. What we're going to have in the end is another elitist candidate (like Kerry) who a) has no identity or empathy for middle income people and b) will be defeated by the Republicans. The Republican machine is biding their time to destroy Senator Obama. They say they have lots of dirt and they're making a movie to be released this summer. It appears the black community is once again being used, unfortunately this time it's by the Democrats!!

Posted by: hazwalnut | February 10, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Is there a reason why I should care about Moran's endorsement? He is nothing but another drunk paddy.

Posted by: Michael1945 | February 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Based upon his history in the private sector, Jim Moran should probably be in jail. If not choking kids, he's up to something nefarious. But the idiots in Alexandria keep putting him back.

Posted by: muskrat | February 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

...from Boston.

Posted by: Michael1945 | February 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Anyone that will not vote for Hillary or Barak in the General election because of their supporters comments, had no intention on voting for them anyway.

To all democrats that can't support the nominee in Nov., join the "straight talk express" and get your 100 year war.

Posted by: FreeAmerican | February 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

My household has never voted for a Republican in my 48 year old life, but we'll vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. His nomination and even the remote chance of his election will be disastrous and set back the Democratic party at least another decade. Empty rhetoric, stagecraft, and Nike-like dumbed down slogans don't cut it in the real world.

Posted by: raven | February 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

steven4: You're a spammer and you work for Hillary Clinton. Please stop. No one is going to change the Consitution to make it easier for Hillary to win the election. Please just quit.

Posted by: Mark F | February 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is still Fill-In-The-Blank candidate of this compaign.

Edwards -- ending poverty in america
Huckabee -- abolish IRS
McCain -- no white flag in Iraq
Clinton -- universal health care
Obama -- ?????

I once went to see Michael Moore. I will not go see this fellow even if he sends me $100 check now. This guy is stupid now.

I waited in line to buy iPhone. I paid hefty early termination fee with another telephone company just to buy this phone. Now, I hate this phone.

Just becasue Obama is attracting big crowds, why should I vote for Obama. If that's the basic for voting, I would rather vote for Hannah Montana. At least, my kids would be happy.

What's MANTRA of Obama campaign?
Where's the BEEF?

Posted by: Benson | February 10, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Don't want to stroke the flames of racial tensions between the black and brown communities, but the Hillary camp has pulled another fast one...

They have just replaced Patti Solis Doyle, Hispanic, as Campaign Mgr, with Maggie Williams, African-American.

The Clinton camp is clearly gearing up for the general election to win back over many of the African-American votes. They clearly feel they have the Hispanic/Latino vote all but certain in Texas....

Talking about taking one group for granted, Hispanics/Latinos and hedging your bets on another group, African-Americans!!!

Its classic Clintonian Politics!!!!

Posted by: Anita | February 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

hazwalnut. I some from the most consistently blue state in the nation, Minneosta, with a whopping Black population of 4.5%. Obama won here 66% to 33%. Caucus state you say, hogwash. Biggest voter turnout on a caucus night in history. Check your facts.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

lets hold our hands up for posible inspiration been shown by both obama and clinton on the campaign trails,but i perceive the outcome for obama becoming demo leader for 2008.

Posted by: victor chie-Denmark | February 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Here is a little secret,

Louisiana is a red state and Barak had more votes than all Republicans combined. Almost 2-1. Democrats are turning out in record numbers.

Posted by: FreeAmerican | February 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Why is this so hard? Can anyone on this board name name JUST ONE piece of legislation Hillary has passed in all of her 35 years of experience that has affected our lives? I for one can't. For all of her talk of EXPERIENCE none of it has translated into law. Her experience boils down to how to play politics. She's played the game a long time. If we want more of that then by all means we should vote for Hillary and get exactly what we deserve. John McCaine as president. If we actually want an opportunity to get things done then we should vote for Barack Obama. For those of you who say Obama lacks substance....tell me in what area. He is for universal healthcare. All those who want it can have it. Those that don't are not forced to buy it. He has a detailed environmental plan, It's not just about him not voting for the war but it is about the judgement and reasoning that led him to that decision. That was the most single important issue a President can make and Hillary got it wrong. Change we can believe in is trusting his word, changing the tone of gridlock politics in Wash., and trying to make all of America better. I don't trust Hillary, she is extremely divisive outside of the democratic party and her campaign tactics prior to SC shows she can't/won't change the tone in wash., therefore I have no idea how she is going to come through with all of her campaign promises.

Posted by: sheila B | February 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the candidate of the future and change. If Hillary is nominated McCain will be President. If you listen to what Obama is saying there is no other candidate that can accomplish what he is capable of.

Posted by: mombo47 | February 10, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

A week ago Hillary appeared at Yale before her old class mates, dressed in sheepskin jacket and bell-bottom jeans. One of her elderly lady friends shouted excitedly:
"You look so 1972, dear."

I think that is the problem: Hillary is the past, but Obama is the future!

Posted by: bodo | February 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Benson: The answer to your question regarding Obama is Working Majority across all party lines.

Can Hillary really deliver that with her polarizin affect she has in the country?

Because let's face it, despite whatever mantra these candidates taut, the bottom line is NOTHING is accomplished without a WORKING MAJORITY!!!

Posted by: Anita | February 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Clinton campaign workers, we know your posting when we see them. Your divisive lies will not help your candidate. Hillary REFUSED to debate her opponent in the NY Senatorial Primary in 2006. "Let's schedule a weekly debate" request is a classic request of a failing candidate. We have had 17 debates already, and there would be more. But please stop this weekly debate request, it really makes your candidate look desperate. Google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results, that is the horrible legacy of the Clintons. Voting to reject the Clintons

Posted by: Ann | February 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Shameful Elizabeth B! Your comments are shameful.

So, your logic is that because Deval Patrick is black (and doing a poor job in your opinion) and Obama is black...then all black people who are elected, will do a poor job?

I really don't care who you vote for because you need to take a look into the mirror of your heart and check your prejudice.

And no, we don't all look alike!

Posted by: Rev JD | February 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Simply put, there is no other candidate that is growing either party, the was Obama is. He will get both independent and swing voters alike. On the other hand, Clinton will mobilize the republican base to vote against her even if they (as do many conservatives) dislike their own Republican candidate. I know die hard Clinton supporters don't like to admit this, however there are equal numbers in those that LOVE the Clintons as those whom HATE the Clintons.

Hasn't America had its fill of polarizing leaders who thrive on highlighting our differences vs. embracing our common grounds and bringing us together?

How can a person who has been a part of the Washington establishment for the past 16 years be expected to be catalyst for change? This is impossible. Obama is the leader for the future and the next generation and I love to say it Clinton supporters..... the next president of The United States of America.

I don't know about the rest of Americans however, I believe we can do better and will not settle for the same old status quo politics of both the GOP and Clinton. After all is Bill Clinton back in the White House really what America needs?

I certainly don't think so. What America needs is change.... America needs Obama!


Posted by: AQC | February 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Edwards -- ending poverty in america
Huckabee -- abolish IRS
McCain -- no white flag in Iraq
Clinton -- universal health care
Obama -- where's the beef

Posted by: Benson | February 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

will somebody please tell me what Obama has actually done as a senator and a man - not what he talks about? then look at what Hillary has accomplished and compare...

Posted by: kevinb | February 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Clinton - Universal Health care? your'right. Like the one, she successfully did in 93. A fiasco, total failure

Obama - Against the Iraq war, from the beginning. Has the moral standing to end the war in Iraq with dignity, and bring our troops home honorably.

Benson, hope this helps.

Posted by: Ann | February 10, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse


Won three democratics presidental nominations contests yesterday oops i meant 4, 13 last tuesday and a few others, totalling about 18 states.

Posted by: onefreeman | February 10, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

This is from a post yesterday morning:
Here are the substantive legislation each has passed:


1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
2. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
3. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
4. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
5. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Here is Obama's:

1. the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
3.The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
4.The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
5.The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

when i hear people talk about change, without specifics, it worries me. this is how Bush was elected. McCain is now claiming to be a big change from bush while cuddling up with him at the same time. personallly, i react with panic and skepticism whenever i am faced with change. most people i think don't really want change, they just don't want what they have, not knowing if the next one down the line is really better or not.

Posted by: kevinb | February 10, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

What the Clintonites don't understand is that more than half of the general electorate will not consider voting for Hillary Clinton. She's an inauthentic, power hungry individual who had her chance to remake the health care system when her husband was president and fumbled it badly because of her own hubris, penchant for secrecy and inability to convince the American people to believe in her ideas and follow her lead. Can someone on this thread name one meaningful accomplishment of this woman's career other than coining the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy"? The notion that her proximity to power imbues her with the judgment to be a leader is ridiculous. Does that mean after Hillary, Chelsea should be president?

Posted by: Lola | February 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I've been wondering why the Conservatives "despise" Hillary the way they do such that they are willing to come out in forces against her that exceed what they are willing to do FOR McCain. Well, I have a theory - and I'm sure I'm late to the party here.

Just as Bush Jr. sought to avenge Daddy in Iraq, I wonder if the GOP fears a retaliation from Hillary for the impeachment days. They were cruel to Hillary who had to openly endure the humiliation of the Expose' they called an investigation while having to manage through a fractured marriage and public office.

I truly think this is why they fear Hillary and would do all they could to defeat her.

That being said, I just do not want any more DRAMA! DONE! Let's turn the page. Let's consider a leader with different ideas - one willing to listen to yours. I have always considered the most dangerous people to be those who think they have all of the answers. If the worse you can say about Obama is that he is an inspiring leader whose plan is fuzzy, I'll take it. Whatever plan these guys put forth will be diluted by Congress anyway. At least we can take the special interest folks out of the mix. He's a far cry better than someone stuck on recycling old ideas and approaches that did not work the first time.

Posted by: Dee | February 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Folks, please read the following excerpt of a David Brooks piece in the Times a few days back. Interesting POV on Hillary's healthcare debacle:

I'm not a Hillary-hater. She's been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her.

But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee.

Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House -- 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.

But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.

On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was "ice cold" at the meeting, Cooper recalls. "It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated."

Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton's response, Cooper now says, was: "We'll crush you. You'll wish you never mentioned this to me."

In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in "The System," their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know.

But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper's centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.

At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton "kind of got this evil look and said, 'We've got to do something about this Cooper bill. We've got to kill it before it goes any further.' "

Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as "dangerous and threatening." Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is "a real fraud. I hope he doesn't make it to this place." According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.

The Clinton effort backfired. It temporarily raised his profile back home. Her health care reform failed, too. She says she's learned the lessons from that failure, but she remains icy toward Cooper. Her health care memos, including a three-page memo drafted in preparation for her meeting with Cooper, have not been made public by the National Archives.

Moreover, the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system.

They've got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She's imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she's done it even though she hasn't answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.

Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn't changed. "Hillary's approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993."

He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It's smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.

Cooper is, of course, a man who has been burned in the past. But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much. A defter politician would have reached out to Cooper and made an attempt to address the concerns he represents.

Posted by: Tim | February 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

ambition does not equal power hungry, just because she is a woman. Obama is just as ambitious, or he wouldn't be running for president. it is just human nature, and it's okay. but if you think ambition in a woman is bad, then by all means cast your vote for mr. huckabee. he doesn't believe women should leave the kitchen, except to attend the nursery...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

To those of you who continue to criticize Barrack Obama for calling himself the only agent of change in this election, I have one thing to say to you: JUST TRUST HIM. Keep in mind that there are plenty of things that he can't speak about openly, until he IS elected, because he is still under the influence of the entrenched and corrupt powers that be. And if he does state clearly what he will do there are plenty of very powerful people who will make sure that he never gets there because they will have too much to lose. Let's take a look at one thing for instance, one injustice that could derail his candidacy, and that is the issue of these so-called "super delegates". What if Mr Obama was to come out against it as being unjust, anti-democratic and should be abolished because it is corrupt and give the voting power of over 10,000 regular voters into the hands of nearly 800 party bosses known as the DNC (Democratic National Committee). Do you thinkit's fair for the Clintons to have so much say in deciding who the next president would be? Bill Clinton alone has placed hundreds of people in this select group, each and everyone of them will have the opportunity to return the favor should either of the two candidates fail to win 2025 delegates. If only 200 hundreds decide to pay him back in kind that's 200,000 votes for Hillary. Do you think it's fair? How many people do you think Obama has placed in the DNC? How many DNC members would want Obama in the office if he was to openly say that this is an item in his change agenda? How many of those party bosses would still want him in office if he publicly declared that as president he would level the playing field and allow each american to have ONE MAN ONE VOTE? Do you think that it's wise for any candidate running for office to declare him/herself openly on this issue? My point is: we need to trust him, and allow him that he would do what he said he would. Why is Hillary refusing to release her income tax record? I think it's only fair for a candidate running for the highest office in the land to release their tax record and show the people that they have nothing to hide. Obama's total networth is $1.3 million. Hillary is supposedly worth over 40 million. Why can't she show to the american people her finances. If she refuses to do so when she is not president and cannot claim executive privileges, what would she do when she can? Can you count how many times Bill Clinton had claimed executive privilege? Just think about it...

Posted by: Julio | February 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary becomes the nominee, she won't win. That's a fact.
I have been to too many rallies recently in VA, and DC with audiences (Republican, Democrats and Independents) and there is a large block of the voting population that will cross parties lines and vote for her opposition, because they dislike her and her husband that much. That says a lot to me.

If being the Governor's wife, while you worked at a corporate law firm in Arkansas and then being First Lady, is what gives you the experience, then maybe Barbara Bush should run. Her husband was the Director of the CIA, VP for eight years and the President for four.(being facetious)

Additionally, that whole notion on experience thing baffles me considerably. She has less experience than him as a legislator, period.He was in the State Senate for 7 years and then has been a Senator for 3. She has been a Senator for 7.

I looked at both of their legislative records and I wanted to see what were the important issues to the them. Hillary sponsored/co-sponsored 2 bills for the military:Korean War Veterans Act (which recognized that the flag should be flown on Armistice Day) and Recognition of the Millitary Order of the Purple Heart (which recognized that they had been in existence for 75 years)...........Obama's millitary bills have to do with veterans: VA Hospital Quality Report Card (has to do with holding people accountable for VA Hospitals and they substandard ammenities); Veterans Homelessness Prevention Act (self explanatory), Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (self explanatory).

When I look at that..I think about Matthew 10:40, "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

She mentions that she voted her conscience, well... the bills that she sponsored (or didn't for that matter) showed her conscience. That doesn't stand up and won't stand up against a former POW. John McCain will most likely win the GOP nomination and he is for the war, and wants to keep our troops there. Hillary voted for the war and said in the last debate that she changed her mind, but would not admit that it was a mistake; from a political standpoint that is going to do her in. She has no record of supporting veterans issues, but she is on the armed services committee?

Obama can stand on stage with John McCain and say, not only did I oppose the war from the beginning, but I am also trying to take care of the veterans when they come back from the war that you sent them to.

Posted by: Rev JD | February 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse we should elect Obama because he DOESN'T say what he will do in office, because if he did say what he would do, he wouldn't get elected? sorry, still sounds like Junior Bush. but i appreciate that people are talking facts now, not platitudes and name calling. a real discussion helps us all. thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

How can you expect a real discussion, when you are calling Barak, Junior Bush?

That's 100 year-McCain

Posted by: onefreeman | February 10, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is no "Chicago Seven" of Anti-Iraq war.

Obama has shown zero leadership skill to end Iraq war since he came to US senate three years ago. Any US senator can go the senator floor ask for vote to cancel war funding. If Obama is passionate about ending this war in Iraq, he had more than 1000 days of his leadership skill to offer any war ending resolution. Obama has done nothing.

Obama nuts should not brag about his Iraq war record in the senate.

Posted by: Benson | February 10, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Six Reasons I won't Vote For Hillary Rodham Clinton

1. Bad Judgment - At the start of the Election, HRC had the African-American Vote. African-Americans are loyal and patient. They were okay with going with Hillary in 2008 and Barack in 2016. Rather than run a classy, confident campaign, Hillary and Bill decided lets show that we can discredit their shining star and trounce him. When she paraded Robert Johnson out to assist in that task, I could hear the collective hand on the hip, "Oh, no she didn't." That bad judgment call caused her to lose the strong lead she had with African-Americans which resulted in a landslide loss. Bill's parting shot will probably lead to the loss of that constituency if she wins the nomination. Hubris.

2. Experience - If I hear about her experience one more time I will puke. Tell me how one year at TCDF and multiple years as a First Lady provides her with the experience to be President? Will Laura Bush be next? She could not get her health plan approved the first time and unless she adopts Obama's plan she won't get the new one approved no matter how loudly she argues you are not a true Democrat unless you agree with her. Arrogance.

3. The Economy - If she participated in the economic boom of the 1990's which was driven by the Internet Boom, why didn't she use that experience to begin with an Internet strategy to raise money, which she now has to copy from Barack. She used an old approach to fundraising, and then ran out of money. And she is going to use her "economic experience" to run the Country's economy? Delusional.

4. Feminism - HRC has set the role of women behind twenty years. I burned my bra so I could have a choice. So when I, or Ted Kennedy, or a female Governor endorses Obama, we are immediately considered anti-feminist rather than just pro-Obama. When she lets her husband fight her battles, she argues that other candidates have their spouses helping out as though the situation is comparable. I welcome a Female President, who is standing on her own and not relying on her husband to get her elected. And she knowingly misrepresented Obama's position on abortion as is being shown on You Tube by the former Head of NOW in Illinois who switched from Hillary to Obama. Lack of Integrity.

5. Hispanics - I feel both African-Americans and Hispanic are being played as the Hillary teams tries to drive a wedge between these groups. Hillary represents a state where people make a million dollars a year and more. Why is she arguing over jobs as hotel maids and busboys. Why isn't she inspiring and assisting both groups to strive for education and opportunity for high level jobs? Lack of Vision.

6. Dynasty - I am sorry. This campaign has shown me that I am sick and tired of the Clinton's and their ambition. They had their time. Let them enjoy their legacy.

I am 60 years old and this is the first Presidential campaign that has inspired me to do more than just go to the polls and vote for the lesser of the two evils.

YES HE CAN! There is nothing false about Hope. OBAMA 08

Posted by: Vote4BO | February 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

What Hillary says she will do when she is president is not as important as her telling the American people how she will bring people together from every corner to support her agenda. The simple fact is she can't.

Posted by: Dan | February 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Of all the people who may have reliable opinions about this race, Donna Brazile ain't one of 'em. Having her as his campaign manager is one of the lesser but identifiable things that contributed to Gore's failure to take the 2000 race out of the hands of the U. S. Supremes !

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

People lined up to see Ronald Reagan and look what that got us. Positive and wishfull thinking will only get you so far. I am sticking with Hillary.

Posted by: Brad | February 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Brad, Keep drinking the kool-aid. Hillary will get crushed by McCain in the general. The vast majority of the American people think Reagan accomplished a lot by the way, including your very own Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Tom | February 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Brad -

Keep saying it, Barak is the new Reagan.

Given the LOVE this country (Dem, Rep, and Ind) had for him, Obama will win by a landslide.

Quit it....You people are about to go completely crazy. LOL

Posted by: onefreeman | February 10, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Another DLC member, of which Hillary Rodham Clinton is a leader, decides to join the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," a phrase coined by the late Paul Wellstone.
"Change is in the air!" cried Ted Kennedy. And a lot of political fingers have suddenly poked up to sense which way the wind is now blowing.

Here's a crib sheet you can use to keep tally:

Posted by: anadromous2 | February 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

a vote for Mccain is a vote for the continuation of Bush. This old man is still fighting Vietnam. When was the last time a republican president won any war.
They are great at starting them, but lousy ending them. Remember the worst attack on US soil happened during Bush! Now we have 7000 dead(911/ Iraq) 40,000 wounded or crippled for life. No sensible approach or desire from Mccain to end this thing. Just more dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians. MCcain is a JOKE!!!!!!!

Posted by: jasbas | February 10, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Jim Moran should be ashamed of himself. His loyalty to The Clintons is as valid as his loyalty to his many wives, when they are of no use to him anymore he moves on... You picked a loser this time Jimmy...

Posted by: Daniel | February 10, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'm not surprised that the campaigns have paid employees working these blogs. Too bad, but I guess that's America. What astounds me is the anti-Obama statements..."he's a nobody," "I voted for a black in Massachusetts once and it didn't work out." Good grief. You can argue the man's positions, but there's one thing you can't argue...the man is BRIGHT. I mean, Harvard Law Review bright. He's someone who will listen to both sides of an argument. That's what I'm looking for--an uncommonly intelligent person who will consider situations. This part about not having experience is a decent argument. I just don't agree you have to have it. Look at the best president of the past 20 years--Bill Clinton. He was governor of Arkansas, for pete's sake. Not a Senator for 20 years.

Posted by: amaikovich | February 10, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at

As enticing as some Democrats may find that; I don't think it will happen; Hillary and Bill's MASSIVE egos would never let them get "behind" this upstart Obama; and if I'm Obama; I've all but shattered my "hope" image by joining what is sure to be another polarizing administration (just opposite end from Bush); besides, Obama would be completely sidelined; Hill nor Bill would want to share the limelight with him and would only view him as a threat to their "legacy"; if he was chosen, he should be smart enough to know he's just being used to smooth over hurt African American feelings that will be there if she vanquishes the first-ever viable Black candidate. Obama 1) is in a good position to win this, and 2) will be a young star in the Democratic Party win or lose; he doesn't have to take the scraps Hill and Bill will offer him to have a presidential future.

Posted by: Scott | February 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Now we hear that Hillary will not release her tax returns until after she is the Democratic nominee--if that actually happens.

Why does she want to withhold such information from her fellow Democrats?

It seems pretty risky for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who will not level with it.

Why should we trust her? The Clintons don't exactly have reputations as truth tellers.

Diogenes would have given both a wide berth.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 10, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Insanity has been variably defined as " continually doing the same things in the same old ways and expecting different results." Keep at it Obama haters, you just might succeed in having the country adjudged "a danger to itself or others" and genuinely 'certifiable', after all. Is this a great country, or what?

Posted by: Bamboozled! | February 10, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Campaign workers that are posting comments here. Please check your blackberry/PDA, it appears Obama won Maine. Please contact Campaign HQ for talking points to deal with this loss.

Posted by: Ann | February 10, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I never thought I'd ever say this - but I will be voting McCain if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I totally agree with Tim (above). Obama and his campaign have made negative comments about Hillary and NO ONE has called him or the campaign out on the issue. Not the media. No one. I find this horribly disappointing. Hillary didn't say one negative thing about Barack at the JJ dinner. Yet, he didn't hesitate to tear right into her. It might as well have been an Obama rally. It wasn't a Virginia Democratic Party event. The night belonged to Obama. I'm so sorry that I spent money on that event. I am so disappointed in the Virginia Democratic Party right now. I went to the JJ dinner to support the Democrats in the 2008 election and I walked away in tears. It was such a divisive event and I am so upset over the whole thing. Even Governor Kaine said "Are you ready for the main event" and introduced Obama. After being a Democrat - and voting Democratic since 1984, I will - for the first time in my life - vote Republican in 2008. The only thing that will change my mind is if Clinton and Obama are on the same ticket.

Posted by: Christina | February 10, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

And to Jim Moran - I, along with many other supporters, stayed with you through thick and thin. Even when Andy Rosenberg ran against you in the primary and jazzed up the "new" voters and the "Gen X" voters, many of us stood with you despite all the horrible things you've said and done over the years. I was absolutely stunned when you endorsed Obama today. I really wasn't expecting that. --- I promise you this - I will do everything I can to unseat you in your next election for the House of Representatives. You let me down today - and I will never forget that!

Posted by: Christina | February 10, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama will never be on the same ticket with the Clintons. Google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results, that is the horrible legacy of the Clintons. Obama did not tear Clinton apart at the JJ dinner yesterday, all he did was to draw contrast. Christina, I am surprised that you did not notice that Hillary Clinton did not congratulate Obama on his wins in WA, NE, LA and the US Virgin Islands. That was the gracious thing to do - i.e., congratulate, and she did not do that. Obama's speech was respectful and he did say good things about Hillary, so I totally disagree that he was not nice to her. I respect your choice, but I am voting to reject the Clintons.

Posted by: Jen | February 10, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Considering that Moran is a filthy sleazy crook, Obama should distance himself from such human debris.

Posted by: Arte | February 10, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Christina, I can see that you got your talking points from the Clinton campaign HQ. I hope at least you are being paid, and you are not one of the people working without pay.

Posted by: Loiuse | February 10, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama.

Think about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's issues.

Are you a Christian? Please pray for his advice from above. I did! And I found it!

God bless you all.

Posted by: mary from illinois | February 10, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

christina...i'm sure jim moran is shaking in his boots over you.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Christina -

I think you are a little upset, right now. There is no way you will vote to continue the Bush Administration (John 100-year-war McCain).

Don't take it personal. Come on, we want you to stay with us.

YES WE CAN ... make a Better America

Posted by: onefreeman | February 10, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Mary from Ill-

Why wouldn't Jesus vote for Barak? Who would he vote for? Why would he vote for them?

Posted by: onefreeman | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Jim Cooper's comment above regarding healthcare speaks volumes about Hillary's potential leadership capabilities:

"her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it."

If Hillary is incapable of reaching across the aisle to garner support for her views (and in this case, even to those in her own party), what do those supporting her think she will get accomplished?

Posted by: Tom | February 10, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Please everyone read the article that accidentally came to me as I was praying fro guidance to choose the right candidate. I was so torn.

This article made up my mind.

HOW COULD I HAVE IGNORED MY CHRISTIAN FAITH (I AM A WHITE CATHOLIC) IN CHOOSING OTHER THAN WHAT CANDIDATE IS OBVIOUS TO ME. "Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama", by Jill Stanek posted July 19,2006 1:00am Eastern

After reading this article you will not like Michelle Obama, let alone BArack.





Posted by: mary from illinois | February 10, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

steve wrote:

"I actually switched from Obama to Hillary.".....

and then you gave some reasonable, rational, thoughtful (longer than 60 seconds or a text message imperative or interrogative) justifications..


just like all the people in INDEPENDENCE DAY... waving signs that read, "Welcome to Earth".. STOP BEING A KILLJOY!!!... enjoy..feel..the passion!!!

Posted by: aw | February 10, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

As a life long Democrat and liberal I have never been more excited or proud of my party and the outstanding choices we ofter for the world,s future! I believe Hillary is the past and Obama Hussein is the future and the leader of the Democrat Party! I think he can bring many more under the Democrat tent and make it the party of the future in the USA . His experience & knowledge of Islam and Muslins ( both his dad & step dad were Muslins and he attended an Islam school as a boy) can bring the Arab Islam Muslins into the Party as well as the Black Muslin Islam Nation and expand the Democrat party. Already we can see Islam Nations around the world are excited & embracing his candidacy. The only that can derail Obama is if Blacks start worrying which tribe he belongs or different than their tribe then that could cause serious problems.

Our parties strong stand against the Constitution and Rule of Law for Illegal Immigration should bring the Illegal Immigrants into our camp. Indeed, all immigrants from around the world that want to immigrate to the USA but do not want to go thought. the hassle of legal Immigration will support us. Finally American can live up to its creed under the Democrats and Citizens of the world irregardless of Religion, Race, Tribe, Nationally, Education, Diseases or Skills can come to American and be citizens of this great Nation and the Democrat party while slopping at the trough of public welfare! Our growing and expanding population with our teeming masses from sea to polluted sea will drive our wages to third world status and allow to us compete with China, India, and other third world countries and end outsourcing of our jobs.

It may require a balancing act having both the Blacks and Latinos under the same tent with Latino hater of Blacks while Blacks are very upset over Latinos Hi-Jacking their civil rights by equating walking across a border to the nearest welfare office, as the same as blacks experienced with slavery. The Ethic cleansing of Blacks in LA by Illegal Hispanics will also make his task harder, but if anyone can ofter them welfare haven then Obama is the Man.

I think as a seasoned, & experienced drug user Obama and as he says in his book , knowing how to score some blow, he will address how backward, unfair and punitive our drug laws are and legalize drugs. This would release millions of Drug users and drug dealers from prison. They, with their knowledge and experience could go into selling, distribution and expanding the legal drug trade and help our economy and the Black & Hispanic communities. In addition to saving tax payers Tens of Billions now spend in incarceration, prevention and drug fighting cost. Of course, all drugs would have a high tax but still be much cheaper than Illegal drugs. We could earmark the tax receipts from drugs to the millions of Uneducated Immigrants we gave American citizenship to help offset the net cost of 20k per year each cost in public welfare. This would reduced the price of drugs to where the average American citizen could afford good coke, just like the elites and Politicians, This will also reduce the price of creak for our poorer citizens, and make their life more enjoyable. But I fear legalizing drugs will be beyond even Obama. The drugs lords have so many Billions due to high prices , to share with our Politicians to keep our borders open for drugs, illegal immigrants, and terrorist to pour across, that the special interests will never let him legalize drugs. I know Obama, you will do your best and that is all we can ask!

Posted by: john | February 10, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Here is the link to the article that I spoke of previously "Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama" by Jill Stanek:

Posted by: mary from illinois | February 10, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that I will know for whom I will vote, if anybody, until I go to the polls. I am 62 years old and have only missed voting in one presidential election.

I have a friend, who met with Clinton when she was in the White House. She told me that Clinton came across as a cold calculating biatch who paid little or no attention to the matter at hand. To my eyes, she still is the biatch with the botox smile and the "Rosemary's Baby" eyes.

Obama is all talk and no action. What have we seen him do? He talks the talk but I doubt if he can walk.

McCain is getting very long in the tooth. I had a great deal of respect for him in the past but I don't think he can handle the job now, mentally or physically. He is very quickly becoming another Strom Thurmond, with his handlers doing most of his thinking. He is in the lap of the puppet masters. Also, I don't believe he is a conservative, just as I don't believe that Ronald Reagan was either.

I discount the other republican candidates as they are still in the race per their own agendas. We are still stuck in the same place we have been for the past few elections, without a candidate that really puts the us first in U.S.

Maybe it is time to do away with the primaries and go back to the conventions and have the senior party members send the names to the floor for the votes of the delegates. The old smoke filled room doesn't seem like a bad idea right now.

Posted by: Michael1945 | February 10, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

john -

Good try FELLOW demoncrat.LOL

YES WE CAN ... Conquer our Fears

Posted by: ONEFREEMAN | February 10, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has been touted in the media as having a "grip on all the issues." I disagree with that. Take 2 important issues:
1) The Housing crisis: Hillary wants to freeze housing interest rates for FIVE years. Such a move would indefinitely increase housing rates in this nation. When lenders know the government can arbitrarily freeze interest rates, they will increase their rates in case it occurs again. Further, lenders could strike back with lawsuits against the government.
2) Health care: Has anyone been paying attention to Massachusetts? The state government has had to grant waivers to those who prove they cannot pay. If they do not, they face a penalty (e.g. a fine). The difference between Hillary and Obama is that Obama understands that the number one problem with health care in our country is cost. Until that problem is solved (or at least controlled), we cannot force people to pay for overpriced insurance. It is not fair to those struggling to survive as it is.

Do not get me wrong-I think Hillary would do well (but not great) as President. I would definitely vote for her if she won the nomination. But I worry she is too polarizing to get the votes in the general election.

Posted by: John Doe | February 10, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Many people have too much of an allegiance to a "person" rather than the country. When I look at candidates, what I look for are new ideas, not the old ones that have not worked for decades. Some criticize Barack Obama because he has been in D.C. for only a short time. That may be a plus as he may not be as jaded or owe so many people "favors." It is interesting to note that most of his funds do not come from special interests and he does not take money from national PAC's, from corporate funds, or from other special interests. That is all to the good. Some have come to believe, with the "My way or the highway" attitude of the Bush Administration that the president is a dictator (in his case that is easy to believe as he and Cheney act that way), however he is not. Hillary is also a great candidate but, given that the Clinton name (through no fault of her own) evokes so much animosity (unwarranted that is true), that many will vote against her merely because she bears that name. Should she lose the nomination, I have several good positions for her. She can either stay in the Senate and knock heads (which I am sure she can) or else take over as Attorney General. The pest-hole that this administration has turned that agency into needs a good "scrubbing down." She, I believe, would be a prime candidate for that job. Either that, or possibly "knock some heads" at the DOD. That also needs a good "going over." I am sure those generals would not intimidate her in the least, despite their chests full of medals.

Posted by: Robert I. Laitres | February 10, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

mary from illinois,
Your buddy Jesus isn't an American citizen so he won't be voting anyway. Also he's dead. And most likely never existed.

Posted by: Armed & Liberal | February 10, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Until one is inspired to do something for America, nothing will get passed. A President of the United States of America can't pass anything if the Congress doesn't like him or her. Obama has Rallies. It is difficult to outline your
agenda at a rally, but he does have his agenda on the web, he answers all questions when he out on the campaign trail. He is brillant, articulate and is an authority on the Constitution which most Presidents aren't. He was a Civil Rights Attorney as well as a Constitution

If each of knew the consitution, we would all be better off today. Listen to Ron Paul sometimes.

Posted by: Beth Davis | February 10, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Not since Bobby Kennedy (whom I believe would have won the presidency hands down) has there been such enthusiasm in the electorate.

Posted by: Kacee | February 10, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I could respond to most of the comments in the above but it has all been said ... except ... think of the message we would send the world if Obama becomes our next president ... all of the things we say we do. It could change our relationships with the world as well as in our country. Plus he is bright enough to surround himself with knowledgable advisors.

Posted by: Ellie Lewis | February 10, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

To Jen - Regarding Hillary congratulating Barack on his wins, when are you referring to? At the JJ dinner? I don't think the results were out at the time she spoke last night? Are you referring to today? -- And going back to the JJ dinner, I wish someone would have told me that it was going to be an Obama rally. I honestly thought it was a Virginia Democratic Party event. But it turned into a Barack Obama rally. That's not how I would have spent my Saturday night, given the choice. -- The guy's a great speaker, I'll give him that. But I've heard him enough and didn't need to pay the big bucks to hear him at the Virginia Democratic Party for Obama rally.

Posted by: Christina | February 10, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

to Steven4:

No problem, but we need you to redo your plan so Barack Obama becomes president NOW. We don't have 8 years to fool around.

Posted by: Soldier's Mom | February 10, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

To all the people who criticize Obama for being 'all style no substance' - I can't give you a good argument in a sentence or two - but that's the point, you want something more than just a soundbite. If you still have a glimmer of openness toward Obama, I have a couple videos that I hope will change your mind.

First is Obama at Google - he gives a speech then an in depth Q+A with the geniuses working there. You can't BS these guys(if impatient go to 52:30 - he addresses 'experience'):

Second is at a church where he speaks in depth about religion and the country. Thoughtful - Even atheists should watch.

Posted by: Bob Riley | February 10, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a member of no organized political party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers

Posted by: guez | February 10, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

And to the person who said that Jim Moran should be shaking in his boots - well, here's a message to Congressman Moran. Today, you endorsed "change." -- Well guess what, Jim - that means YOU, TOO!!!! When you're up for re-election for the 100th time (yes, it feels that long), I will personally lead the way to "CHANGE" and ask my fellow citizens in the 8th District "to vote for the new guard because it's time for change." Out with Moran!!! We need CHANGE in the 8th District!

Posted by: Christina | February 10, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a smart, dedicated and hard-working woman. I want a woman in the White House, but not this one. First, leadership is not about working hard for people, is about inspiring people to work hard for the nation. Obama can do that, Hillary can't. She says "I'll work hard for your interests" he says "I can't do this alone, we need to work together." Of the two, Obama's approach to change is the most realistic. Second, if there is a candidate that is going to unite the Republicans, that's Hillary, we have to ask ourselves if we really want all that baggage from the 90s coming back to this important election, because believe me, Hilary wins, the Republicans will remind us of it every single day until election day. Third, both arguments for Hillary, experience and change, are going to backfire in the general election. Is she going to run on "experience" against McCain? I don't think so. McCain also embodies change better than Hilary because he can move us past the Clinton-Bush eras to a new era of non-partisan approaches, look at his record in the Senate. Obama can win the general election, I don't think Hilary can ... oh and about "experience", Bush had plenty of experience running a state two terms, and his team was one of the most experienced in history, look at the mess we are in. Common Sense my friends, and openness, are more important than experience.

Posted by: Ben | February 10, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"john's" posting from 8:06 pm has been posted every day over the past few days to get people angry. John's racist rant is ridiculous (and claiming to be a lifelong Democrat and liberal even more so). John -- you're a total loser.

Posted by: HM | February 10, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

To: Armed & Liberal:

Your right, Jesus would not vote in this election, especially for Barack Obama!

It's obvious due to the moral standards of Americans, he has abandoned this nation!

Posted by: mary from illinois | February 10, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

It is just total nonsense when someone states that if Hillary wins the democratic nomination, they would cross the line and vote republican.






Posted by: steve | February 10, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

As an Illinoisan who supported Obama before he won the Democratic Primary for the Senate race, I have heard Obama speak a number of times in small gatherings. I have always been impressed by his knowledge of the issues and his ability to grasp minute detail relating to those issues. While Hillary may be a policy wonk, Obama too has a grasp of complex issues. There is no shortage of substance to him. I will support either Democratic candidate, but Obama presents us with an oppportunity to have both intelligence, a complex understanding of the issues and inspiration. It is a powerful combination.

Posted by: Jill from Illinois | February 10, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Legal proceedings are contingent on procedural and most significantly substantive elements in proper adjudication of civil and criminal suits. A comparative analogy is suitably transferable it seems to the primary election process, if results are to produce a cohesive political outcome that will foster party unity in the general election. Unfortunately todate in the Democratic caucuses the clock seemingly runs retrograde to former times when apparent racism, substance abuse, sexual preferences, gender issues, etc. fueled election processes in the 1960's in this country.

I am reminded of the intense idealism that permeated my generation during that time, favoring a candidate of change, who later was the victim of hatred and eventual homicide. I can remember sitting in 11th grade Latin class sobbing with fellow classmates at the news that the 35th President of the United Sates had been assassinated. It was many years later that truth revealed itself in reason, in fact as to hidden elements that surrounded that particular event, as well as the later assassinations of the Attorney General, and major civil rights leader, all 3 who were immediately elevated to a status of demi-gods in the eyes of the world.

The 60's social, drug and sexual revolution infiltrated the political intelligensia as well as social, academic and business milieu of this country. The day following inaugural celebrations of the 1960 election campaign, the Washington Post printed an article stating the President was seen entering the home of Washington Social Columnist Joseph Alsop at midnight, a prominent homosexual in Washington social circles, noted for his hedonistic Tiberian style adulterated sexual parties.

Concern regarding potential similarities in hiddened elements pertaining to current democratic caucuses nationally, without pointing a finger, reference a state of responsibility to our children. Nationally child molesation has become a common practice difficult to prosecute as it fails to remit significant revenue to counsel, and rarely meets financial quotas of prosecuting DA's, as evidenced by national media coverage, Fall 2007. Just where are we headed as a nation regarding this issue is a substantive question, which continues to fall on deaf ears in Washington, including those involved in current Presidential national caucuses.

Substantive qualities in the legal process are the heart and soul of law. Unfortunately for poorly qualified attornies, or cases which merit little if any substantive defense, procedural irregularities are common tactics used to manipulate events to disparaging outcomes.

It is impossible to know the merit of a presidential candidate until they are elected and maintain office. There are however substantive elements available to informed constituents, based on previous tenure of service, voting record, international diplomatic experience, experience with national budget surplus/deficits, managing health care issues, social security surplus/deficits, financial appropriations, strategic military planning/vision/leadership,
labor/workforce development committee steering, immigration legislation, etc.
Providing a well written script to an orator, capable of winning an audience with eloquent performance is unequivalent to executive management of a trillion dollar budget, caring for the lives of over 300 million constitutents, executive world leadership especially in a time of war.

Substance comes from the latin noun "substare," meaning to be present. Reverting to former tactics in previous decades, previous elections, previous times is possibly an anathema to current day needs of a global society constantly viewing the leadership of a major world power. Are candidates guilty of replacing substantive meaning with procedural maneuvers to capture the vote: are constituents falling prey to media recreational commercialization failing to
recognize the importance of substance in election choices? In retrospect, we are often told "hindsight is perfect vision!"
Remission in applying this hindsight nevertheless potentially leaves a population caught somewhere between then and now, inimical to the substantive focus necessary to deal with current issues.

Comments such as this inevitably trigger rebuttals of "non-sequitur" in content from opposing political scientist: A convenient procedural skill used to signal a death knoll to commentary that hits an operative nerve.

Posted by: Neal Hightower | February 10, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Mary from Ill

God would never abandoned this country. The founders helped to assure that by putting religious freedom in the constitution. Too many Americans pray.

That's why we can't be fooled by thosing professing to be that which they are not.

The one that came as the religious one, turned out to be a warmonger.

Obama is not trying to sell religion, he is spreading a message of hope and change. And you know this country needs a change and it can't change to anything worse.

Since when did hope become a sinful thing.

When a nation is in the condition like this one is in, it definitely needs change.

I voted for Republicans because of abortion. They had both houses of congress, the white house and the supreme court and yet no legislation to outlaw abortion. Then make WARS based on LIES.

Tell me you want to protect unborn children but you don't want to help the ones already born. Dropping bombs on people and want me to believe you love life. I ain't buying it no more.

I'd rather have a president that will say he is not going to deal with roe v wade than to have one say they will and don't.

We need CHANGE in America.

YES WE CAN ... Heal this Country.

Posted by: ONEFREEMAN | February 10, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Legal proceedings are contingent on procedural and most significantly substantive elements in proper adjudication of civil and criminal suits. A comparative analogy is suitably transferable it seems to the primary election process, if results are to produce a cohesive political outcome that will foster party unity in the general election. Unfortunately todate in the Democratic caucuses the clock seemingly runs retrograde to former times when apparent racism, substance abuse, sexual preferences, gender issues, etc. fueled election processes in the 1960's in this country.

I am reminded of the intense idealism that permeated my generation during that time, favoring a candidate of change, who later was the victim of hatred and eventual homicide. I can remember sitting in 11th grade Latin class sobbing with fellow classmates at the news that the 35th President of the United Sates had been assassinated. It was many years later that truth revealed itself in reason, in fact as to hidden elements that surrounded that particular event, as well as the later assassinations of the Attorney General, and major civil rights leader, all 3 who were immediately elevated to a status of demi-gods in the eyes of the world.

The 60's social, drug and sexual revolution infiltrated the political intelligensia as well as social, academic and business milieu of this country. The day following inaugural celebrations of the 1960 election campaign, the Washington Post printed an article stating the President was seen entering the home of Washington Social Columinst Joseph Alsop at midnight, a prominent homosexual in Washington social circles, noted for his hedonistic Tiberian style adulterated sexual parties.

Concern regarding potential similarities in hiddened elements pertaining to current democratic caucuses nationally, without pointing a finger, reference a state of responsibility to our children. Nationally child molesation has become a common practice difficult to prosecute as it fails to remit significant revenue to counsel, and rarely meets financial quotas of prosecuting DA's, as evidenced by national media coverage, Fall 2007. Just where are we headed as a nation regarding this issue is a substantive question, which continues to fall on deaf ears in Washington, including those involved in current Presidential national caucuses.

Substantive qualities in the legal process are the heart and soul of law. Unfortunately for poorly qualified attornies, or cases which merit little if any substantive defense, procedural irregularities are common tactics used to manipulate events to disparaging outcomes.

It is impossible to know the merit of a presidential candidate until they are elected and maintain office. There are however substantive elements available to informed constituents, based on previous tenure of service, voting record, international diplomatic experience, experience with national budget surplus/deficits, managing health care issues, social security surplus/deficits, financial appropriations, strategic military planning/vision/leadership,
labor/workforce development committee steering, immigration legislation, etc.
Providing a well written script to an orator, capable of winning an audience with eloquent performance is unequivalent to executive management of a trillion dollar budget, caring for the lives of over 300 million constitutents, executive world leadership especially in a time of war.

Substance comes from the latin noun "substare," meaning to be present. Reverting to former tactics in previous decades, previous elections, previous times is possibly an anathema to current day needs of a global society constantly viewing the leadership of a major world power. Are candidates guilty of replacing substantive meaning with procedural maneuvers to capture the vote: are constituents falling prey to media recreational commercialization failing to
recognize the importance of substance in election choices? In retrospect, we are often told "hindsight is perfect vision!"
Remission in applying this hindsight nevertheless potentially leaves a population caught somewhere between then and now, inimical to the substantive focus necessary to deal with current issues.

Posted by: Neal Hightower | February 10, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

I have voted Republican in every year , in every contest, for the past 25 years.

I cant wait until Tuesday to vote for Barack Obama.

I've given his campaign the max 2300 dollars and I have gone door to door in Richmond for OBAMA.

I'll vote for OBAMA again in November.

But if Hillary win the nomination, I'll vote for McKain, Huckabee, Romney, W, Cheney..............anyone except Hillary.

Posted by: Patrick Adamson | February 10, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I was at the JJ dinner last night.

The Clinton supporters looked scorned.

The had the kind of look women get when their husbands leave them for someone younger, smarter,fresher.


Posted by: Patrick Adamson | February 10, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has a "dirty little secret"! Does anyone know what it is?

He hides it very well from the public!

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

Can't wait to vote for Obama. And I like the suggestion from an earlier poster: an Obama-Webb ticket would be unbeatable.

Posted by: C-Dog | February 10, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Many of the people who seem to think Obama is all inspiration and nothing more don't seem to want to know or think otherwise. The majority of the people I know who 'do their homework' before selecting a candidate are supporting Obama (and a few of them are Republicans who knew Bush's war was a mistake from day one because they were paying attention).

Regardless of who we are backing, we need to end, or ignore, the baseless hateful rhetoric on both sides and educate ourselves. My grandfather was a staunch Republican and he knew I was a bit of a bleeding heart liberal, but he was proud of me and my ideas because he knew I read and watched and listened to a wide variety sources before making up my mind (not just those that said what I wanted to hear) and I thank God for his encouragement to educate myself before making up my mind. I'm voting for Obama but I respect those who will come to other conclusions after making an effort to really learn about all candidates. However, I do not understand those who believe and spout nonsensical rhetoric from unreliable sources to defend their choices.

Posted by: Shannon S | February 10, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Saw Obama on 60 minutes tonight. When it comes to substance and people's complaint about this, he pointed out that in the beginning of his campaign, he went over his positions on issues in fine detail which was also met with complaints from those who came to see him at rallies to the detriment of his campaign. People new most of his points, but wanted to be inspired, so that is what he has chosen to do. However, this doesn't mean he lacks substance. It just takes listening and research on the part of the voter. All of his positions are available on his website and have been discussed during debates. If you are reading this, it tells me you know how to work an internet browser. Check out his website to satisfy your curiosity about his policies if you want to know them There is a reason media and various other entities are saying Obama and Clinton's positions are similar; they are.
By the way, I feel sorry for those who don't believe that change can come. One of the best moments in American history is upon us and in thelives of the critical, it is passing them by. Oh, well.
Yes we can! Obama '08

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

To Patrick Adamson - That's exactly what the 40 and above females need to hear! Not a good "gender" comment, on your part. You've just fired me up even more! Hillary all the way, baby!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 10, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I checked out the link posted below by the person responding to Steve:

This is not a negative for Obama at all. Rather, it shows him giving very thoughtful, unscripted responses to substantive questions ranging over a very diverse set of topics.

I hope undecided readers view this video. It puts to rest the idea that Mr. Obama is somehow not engaged with the important issues we face.

Posted by: Tony | February 10, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Why do we constantly have to attack each other's candidate and those who support these candidates? "Can't we all just get along."

Posted by: tim | February 10, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

What bodes well for democrats and anyone else looking for a change in the direction of our executive branch, is the incredible participation in the democratic primaries up to this point. I believe it's a 5-1 ratio democrats to republicans in this primary season.

Extending that point, I am encouraged that so many people are commenting on this blog tonight. What it means is that people understand the enormity of this election. The utmost priority is to stop the current policies of the Bush Administration and to correct the dangerous trends that have continued for the last eight years. My personal choice is that Borack Obama is the candidate best suited to guide our country forward. However, I support all candidates advocating a change of course from our country's current precarious path.

Thank you all for your comments tonight and encourage everyone you know to vote on Tuesday and again in November.

Posted by: Snappy Tommy | February 10, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so let's see here! Tonight on C-Span, Obama was given a speech at a high school in Virginia today that was tapped earlier.

He mentioned that his grandmother whom raised him and took care of him with his mother, lives in Kenya in a hut with no electricity.

What's wrong with this picture! He's gonna take care of the poor when he can't even take care of his own. A wonderful grandmother whom took care of him and raised him and sacrificed to give him the best.

yet, he lives in a $2,000,000.00 home on the south side of chicago, along with a $600,000.00 lot adjacent to their home that Michelle had to have, ya know, so that she could have her privacy.

Nice guy!

Iill say it again and's all about the image and the power, and nothing else.

There is no substance to this man or his wife.

Michelle Obama in my mind is the devil in drag!!!! and Barack doesn't follow that far behind!!!!!

When are you people going to wake up!

Look beyond the surface...check out your candidates.

Footnote: He was stumbling all over the place tonight when the audience asked him questions.

He is so not ready to run this country.

Posted by: steve | February 10, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey Steve -

Wanna give it a rest? This type of dialog does nothing to support real discourse between the democratic candidates.

Posted by: snappy tommy | February 10, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

snappytommy:explain to me please why my opinions don't matter, but yours do?

Are you afraid to see the truth?

Again, another fool who is fooled by his rhetoric!

Posted by: steve | February 10, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm listening to Bill Cunningham(right wing misleader) crying about liberals ruining his life. I am beginning to feel sorry for the right wing.

It is really sad to hear how the poor and the liberals have made the lives of the right wing so bad. You guys need Dr. Phil or Montel. I just don't know what to do, cry and continue laghing?

As if Bush did such a good job. You people are making this too much fun.

Posted by: ONEFREEMAN | February 10, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Okay, how is "Michelle Obama in my mind is the devil in drag" an informed opinion? If you want to get into a true dialog of politics, let m know.

Posted by: snappy tommy | February 10, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter. I believe that he has the intellect, judgement and temperament to be president for the times that we face. He does not appear to be overly excitable and is willing to work across party lines. We are members of political parties, but ultimately we are Americans. Obama's bi-racial heritage, and what may seem "unique" family situation is that he can call himself with ease a "black" man, yet he was raised to be a "Black Man" by his white mother and her parents. And obviously, they did a fine job as Senator Obama appears first to be a gentleman, respectful, a devoted husband and father. Now, it is clear that if you read his book, he has great love for his grandparents, Mr and Mrs Dunham. What is more interesting is that the Dunhams, white, born in the mid 1900's, were very devoted to raising Barack. It would be thought that the Dunhams would have forced their only daughter to either have an abortion or place the child for adoption. So, yes, from Senator Obama's personal experience, he grew up in a loving family and he learned early that "physical" differences, were superficial. This will help him to treat leaders from 3rd World nations from a position of respect, rather than with a superior air.
I am a female and believe the US is ready for a female President. There are many capable female leaders in our Congress and serving as governor in several states. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton is the best female for the position of President.
I believe that the time now is for Barack Obama to serve as US President and if he is nominated, I will vote for him.

Posted by: AJ | February 10, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Snappytommy: The reason for my statement, is that a person whom has no feelings for human life, a person that would throw a luncheon, as Mary from Illinois, had stated above, to collect $150.00 per person so that her husband could get to be senator to pass a law that would kill live babies, doesn't seem too kind to me.

She is all about her. She said that if Hillary CLinton (and believe me I'm not a hillary fan...I am undecided) became the democratic candidate, she would not support Mrs. Clinton.

Now tell me if that isn't the worst comment coming out of a candidate's wife's mouth about another democratic candidate that may win the democratic nomination.

She is basically saying she won't cast her vote for a democratic candidate if it is not her husband.

She also said that if a black man does not vote for her husband, he is an embarrasment to the Black race.

She is racist, a baby killer, selfish, self-centered and greedy.

These are all the things that the world is consumed with today.

She belongs to a church that is anti-israel. Is all about black power. Gives awards to Mr. Farrakhan. Her husband's campaign is endorsed by the Racist Black Panther Organization. Look on his website.

But most of all, I agree with Mary from Illinois, her actions and comments are un-called for.

WIll the real Michelle Obama please stand up!

I agree with Bill Clinton, only this time though; when he said their whole campaign is nothing more "Than a Fairy Tale"!

Wake up America, smell the coffee. Know your candidates. Check them out. Study their words and their actions.

Posted by: steve | February 11, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign is all about greed ,power and arrogance!

Posted by: stella | February 11, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

"Steve" -- thank God you switched from being an Obama supporter to Mrs. Clinton. I would be so ashamed if you were still on our team. I have to actually step back and believe that you must actually be a Republican operative because I cannot believe that any of Mrs. Clinton's supporters could be as denigrating as you are in your incessant posts. I have heard Michelle Obama -- she is a Harvard law grad, brilliant and faithful mother of 2 great kids and a working mother who knows about juggling work and family life. The Obamas are only recently out of their school debt -- something I can certainly relate to. Mrs. Obama did not say that she wouldn't support Mrs. Clinton -- just that she'd have to think about it (a statement made in the heat of battle).
As far as Sen. Obama's command of the issues and his policies, please people, every independent commentator has concluded that with the exception of Mrs. Clinton's disastrous vote to enmesh our country in Iraq, these two candidates' are virtually indistinguishable. Barack Obama has my vote for a number of reasons: he embodies the American dream -- one generation away from a village hut in Kenya this man has risen to challenge for the presidency. He is brilliant -- Harvard Law review editor; principled -- community organizer, not Walmart Board Member; experienced -- yes, he has 3 more years' of his OWN elective experience than Mrs. Clinton; who is a true leader, that is, he has the ability to inspire and LEAD us not respond to whatever the latest polls say he should be saying to get elected or keep his precious office. This kind of candidate doesn't come along every day; there is nothing wrong with being passionate about a candidate -- I think because it's been so long since it happened people denigrate its importance. This is our time, this is our candidate, this is our best hope for a Democratic victory in November. And if you don't believe me, just look at who Rush Limbaugh is fundraising for -- this is from his Feb. 7 broadcast: "But the reason for raising money for Hillary is because that apparently my party is relying on fear and loathing of Hillary to get the nomination, to unite Republicans, who are, some of them, off the reservation. The Republicans do not seem to be relying on leadership in their party to unite the party. They seem to be relying on all these external things, nobody is going to vote for Hillary, negative turnout factor. What if she's not the nominee? We've got make sure she's the nominee if the Republican Party is to be unified. What more loyal thing could I do than to run a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton? You watch, though, you watch how that will be questioned."

Posted by: Bette | February 11, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

I read this post From Elizabeth Brown in Massachusetts, and can't quite get over it, so let me quote it in its entirety at the end of this post to let it sink in. Ms. Brown claims that she is a psychologist, and then goes on to say that the reason she is unable to vote for Senator Obama is because she voted for a "bright young African American whose main message was hope" named Deval Patrick earlier. This bright young African American has been a disappointment to her and he also supports Obama, and this seems to be enough reason for her to not vote for Obama, another "Bright young African American."

Let us analyze her languagehere. "Bright" - a term used to represent intelligence, however, often also used as an adjective to describe someone coming from a group that one does not expect to be bright--used somewhat defensively as a measure to forestall accusations of racism ("I did say he was bright, after all..."). What if she had said "a bright young Jewish man," "a bright young Hispanic man," "a bright young Native American man." What exactly was the point of mentioning his race? There was no point except in drawing the comparison to Obama who Ms. Brown also seems to think appears to be a "bright young African American." The logic deconstructs itself and reveals an underlying and most-likely unconscious racism that also came out (yes) in Bill Clinton's statement that "Jesse Jackson" had also won South Carolina but had not gone far in the presidential campaign. Why mention Jesse Jackson when there were many other presidential candidates who could have been mentioned? Likewise, why would Ms. Brown mention the race of Deval Patrick unless she was drawing a similar conscious or unconscious racial comparison? How do Mr. Patrick's promotion of casinos have anything to do with Mr. Obama?

I am quite surprised that a psychologist would not recognize this. But perhaps it is often difficult for us to see our own biases.

And for the record, I am an Obama supporter. I think Ms. Clinton is an accomplished senator and I admire her achievements, but I admire more Senator Obama's transparency, integrity, and ability to mobilize the generation who will inherit the effects of this next generation.

Here is the full text of Ms. Brown's post

" >

Posted by: Carmen | February 11, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Jen, you are talking about congratulations and make a big deal, Hillary did, also you are talking about small fry, why not consider about the important issues, like healthcare, economy, immigration, Iraq war and international relationships, you may be a Obama's blind follower or don't know the whole picture of political view of Hillary or Obama, could be both.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | February 11, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I am 62 years old and a woman. I don't live in the past, but I know the past. I went to my neighborhood caucus. So did a 17 year old girl that I know who will be able to vote and a 90-year-old former constitutional lawyer. The turnout was exciting. The content was not. Independently, the three of us reached a conclusion that the movement, the bid for change, the draw of charisma, while in itself spoke to a deep desire for change, also seriously dampened any possible debate over issues. The 17-year-old was disappointed by her first exposure to our political arena. The Obama people were fervent but not particularly open. My friend, the constitutional lawyer, has been told repeatedly that if he wants to know what Obama stands for he should visit Obama's website. He doesn't know how to use a computer. Our spokespeople had one minute to summarize why one should vote for one or the other. They did a credible job. If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were asked to do the same, I believe Hillary Clinton would give me my "list". Obama would not and perhaps could not.

Posted by: Susan Crowell | February 11, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Regarding Ms. Clinton's war vote, has anyone considered who she represents? In case you've been in the dark, she represents New York, the state that took the biggest hit on 9/11. When she was presented the information on Iraq, she had no choice but to consider the devastation in New York on 9/11. I believe that she never wanted us to go to war with Iraq. But the Bush administration had credible evidence that showed weapons of mass destruction and a threat to use them. Senator Kerry saw the same evidence, as sid many others, and voted the same way that Clinton did. And I am not fully convinced that Obama would not have voted the same way had he been privy to the same information. He was in Illinois at the time, so he never saw the confidential information that Congress saw. I have a hard time believing his "I've been against the war from day one rhetoric when he never saw the confidential information given to Congress at the time. Considering what happened in New York on 9/11, Hillary made the right decision at the time for New York. I think they wouldn't have been angry at her if she had done otherwise. Let's please keep that in perspective when trashing her war vote.

Posted by: Christina | February 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company