Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Satisfying the Democratic Electorate

They try, and they try, but can Democratic voters get any satisfaction?

More than seven in 10 likely voters in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries said they'd be satisfied with each of the remaining candidates as the party's nominee, according to new Washington Post-ABC News state polls.

About four in 10 would be "very" satisfied with Hillary Clinton in each state, and about the same proportions expressed that level of satisfaction with Barack Obama.

The findings mirror recent exit poll results showing widespread satisfaction among the Democratic electorate with both candidates, though, naturally, Clinton and Obama each do slightly better than the other in states they win.

In Wisconsin, for example, 68 percent said they would be "very" or "somewhat" satisfied should Clinton become the Democratic party's nominee, but more, 82 percent, felt the same about Obama, who prevailed in the Badger State by 17 percentage points.

But behind this widespread satisfaction, there are big differences between the two in some groups whose turnout could be crucial in a close general election contest.

Independents in both states are less likely to say they would be "very satisfied" with Clinton than with Obama as the Democratic standard-bearer. In Ohio, 43 percent of independents would be very satisfied with Obama; 31 percent would be that happy with Clinton. In Texas, the satisfaction gap among independents was 15 percent.

But there is also a significant drop-off in the proportion of white women who would very satisfied with Obama as the nominee. In Texas, 47 percent of white women said they would be very satisfied with Clinton, while a third would be that satisfied with Obama. In Ohio, a majority of white women, 54 percent, said they'd be very satisfied with Clinton, but only 25 percent said they would be that satisfied with Obama.

Among African Americans, the differences are even larger. In Texas, just 26 percent would be very satisfied if Clinton wins the nomination, but 75 percent said they would feel that strongly should Obama win. There's an even larger gap among African Americans in Ohio: 20 percent would be very satisfied with Clinton, about four times as many with Obama.

Will the Democrats' record turnout performances of this primary season continue in November regardless of the nominee? Either candidate's progress within these groups between now and March 4 could be an early indicator.

Full data from the Post-ABC polls of likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio and Texas can be found here.

By Jennifer Agiesta  |  February 22, 2008; 1:54 PM ET
Categories:  Post Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: March Madness
Next: Should Clinton Fight On?

Comments

It is not a question of who is dedicated to civil service and committed to allowing access to opportunities for Americans and others around the world. It is obvious we have two individuals, Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama, who are eager to open the dialogue between those with differing viewpoints within our country and abroad in order to create solutions for the many domestic challenges we have as well as our standing on the world stage.

The question is who is best suited to assume leadership of our country in 11 months. The question is who is best suited to structure an administration in less than 3 months from the national election in November to the inauguration in January in order to focus immediately on the issues at hand. The question is who is best suited to take on international affairs with the tact and the knowledge of complex diplomatic structures and cultural intricacies without diminishing the reputation our head of state, the President of the United States.

The new President's administration will include leadership over and the establishment of an agenda to unify dozens of departments and agencies. This administration will have to lead over global diplomatic efforts to avoid military solutions that risk the lives of our troops and civilians alike, to diminish the efforts of terrorist and to improve the lives of people around the world.

In my opinion the answer to these questions is Hilary Clinton. She has the many years of experience that includes failures from which to learn. She has the broad personal and professional network from which to draw upon to structure an administration with ease. She has travelled the world as a senator and as the first lady representing our country and met with many world leaders. She has the knowledge of the finite facts and figures necessary to make the appropriate leadership decisions.

The answer is not Barrack Obama yet! His opportunity will be in 8 years

Posted by: Gary F | February 22, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't know where you get this polling data. Everyone I know who supports Hillary will not vote for Barack and that is a fact, not a threat. We are all going to votre McCain if she loses. We've done a president who is unqualified, never again.

Posted by: CJ | February 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This debate is an old one.....this north of the border citizen had the opportunity to be educated and work in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. As a child, I admired the values,heros and the history of this country. How times have changes so rapidly for the worst in my opinion.

Senator Hillary R. Clinton is the old guard......Senator Barrack Obama the new.......one see herself as the saviour the defender of the fate..(she in fact, if you listen to her will EMPOWER us.)..if we just listen to her she can direct and give us all we need. This Senator in my opinion fails to recognize that we inherently are born with all we need. A people require the opportunity to particiapte in a meaningful way in their journey.

Mr Obama it would appear has tapped into the basic motivation of the human condition...HOPE. LIBERATION......WE can and will make the the changes required to move forward in a meaningful, caring, productive and honorable way to restore the values of yester year. EMPOWERMENT vs LIBERATION this is not symantics this is the future. All the best

Blue J. Braun
Victoria, BC

Posted by: Blue J. Braun | February 22, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I would seriously think about voting for McCain. HRC is a very well qualified person, but because we are indeed due for new leadership in Washington. We need to put our differences aside and think about what is best for our country. McCain does not know anything about the economy he even admitted to that. America we need to think of the future especially for our children. Obama is the answer for the future.

Posted by: SWilliams | February 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I for one DON'T believe Mrs. Clinton is looking to, As Gary says "Open a dialogue between those with differing viewpoints within our country". I have listened to several of her speeches thus far. All that I hear is more divisiveness...This voter isn't interestes. I am an independant who will vote for Obama in the Ohio primary. Then I will have to make my decision between McCain and Obama in Nov.

Posted by: Shane | February 22, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Whats' about Hispanics??Think about CA and some other states.

Posted by: abc | February 22, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Satisfying the Democratic Electorate
They try, and they try, but can Democratic voters get any satisfaction?
----------------------------


RE:
With the candidates focused on Texas, Obama told 17,000 people in Reunion Arena in Dallas that he agreed with Clinton that there is a choice for Democrats to make.
--------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
Montreal, February 20, 2008

SENATOR OBAMA ,

The whole world has its eyes on you, on The United States Of America and its people.

Everyone expects you to be democratically elected and see that something happen in America.

In March 1983, one of humanity's most famous spokesmen, Pope John Paul II, came to our country - 'Haîti' - and loudly proclaimed what each and every one of us had been whispering:

'Something must change here.'

Today, more than ever, a lot of people of The United States of America stand up, longing for something and working to make something happen.

And, like in March 9, 1983, beloved Haiti, History - (which from then and now on rests in thy hands) - tells thee: 'It is now time to let people speak to thee of love!', let's say today': 'Go thou America ahead and show us thy true countenance in a positive light.' It is up to everyone to play his or her part in order to let thee regain thy mark of excellence !'

With this letter, I am communicating with You, Senator Obama, and with the whole people of The United States of America.

You offer this country what it takes to be a 'Wonderfull Land.' Yes, let us say 'with a great people living together.'

Go thou, America, go ahead, following in the footsteps of one of thy sons who is now becoming one of thy statesmen.

With this in mind, Mr.Obama, to whom else could I entrust this letter sent to his Holiness Pope John Paul II when he set foot on Haitian soil for the first time, as well as its acknowledgment by the Vatican?

That letter to Pope John Paul II is intended to draw attention to the problem posed by anti-Black discrimination and its negative repercussions on the advancement of scientific progress in the West, and more precisely in the realm of Optics.

In the Western world, according to Newton's widely accepted theory, white is considered to be the synthesis of all colors. Actually, the opposite is true. White constitutes the analysis or 'visible' decoding of light or color, whereas black is its synthesis or 'invisible' composition.

In other words, darkness or blackness and, we might add, 'Black Holes' - a scientific misnomer designating invisible stars or 'Black Suns' - are a source of energy and light.

That basic raw material of light energy culminates, in its most radiant form, in the neutralization of all the colors of the spectrum in the form of so-called "white light."

Therefore "absolute blackness", the absorption of all the colors, is a divisible component of light. Needless to say, Newton's theory gives only a partial interpretation of the notion of light, by excluding black. Our contribution aims at demonstrating that the black color is not only an integral part of the color process, but its true synthesis. Light is therefore shown to be a divisible whole comprising an intensity or color scale in which black is the invisible or 'absorbed' form of the energy in question.

Allow me, Senator Obama, in order to support my statement concerning Black Holes and radiation, to pose a question asked by Hubert Reeves, Doctor of nuclear astrophysics and Scientific Consultant to NASA:

What would have become of the Sun, if it were plunged into a high temperature radiance like the one that existed at the beginning of the Universe? [our translation]

Instead of emitting light, it would absorb it and, in the end, it would be completely reabsorbed into the cosmic fluid.

The cosmic fluid is what, due to an "optical mistake", is called "darkness" or the "blackness of space". We are talking about the electromagnetic flux, that immeasurable ocean in which the planets and stars are bathed, like the sea which links all the continents together. Darkness is thus "The Sea of Space."

What would have happened if, instead of an ordinary star like the "White Sun", a Black Hole or "Black Sun" were injected into that primordial radiation?

According to Einsteinian Physics, a Black Hole is a place where gravity is so formidably intense that nothing can escape it, not even visible light. Such a hole should suck in and absorb radiation and increase its own mass: E=MC2, always.

But after Einstein came Bohr, Heisenberg, and Quantum Physic. From then on, nothing was the same as before.

The Einsteinian version of the Black Hole is equivalent to a statement that the matter inside the Black Hole is definitely there to stay, in that volume of space. Let us quote Hubert Reeves: "Such an absolute statement is thus contrary to the "Quantum spirit", affirming that nothing is definitely localized in one place. There is always a probability of escape. If the enclosing wall is too high, a tunnel will be dug; if the prisoners are patient, they will escape. One has only to wait. [our translation]

According to that principle, Black Holes "evaporate." Matter constantly escapes as radiation. Black Holes "shine!" Their surfaces behave like those of any body heated to a certain temperature and that radiation endlessly feeds that marvelous "Cosmic Fluid" which, wrongly and in bad faith, people keep calling "Darkness."

Nigra sum "sed" formosa. Yes, but should we not say instead, I am black "and" comely? Darkness, which is both source and vehicle of light, does not have to defend itself for being the beautiful and infinitely discreet raw material of the Universe. Darkness is the "Mother of the Universe."

Also, beautiful and discreet art thou, Haiti. Discreet, yes, but never outshone! Just like the Black Virgin who inspires and sheds her love on thee from the hilltop and even beyond Cité Soleil (Sun City).

Our purpose was to offer a more constructive approach aiming at correcting the abusive traditional, so-called scientific, theories of Optics. That is why, we wrote to that authentic witness to the signs of this age, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the prophet of the new era.

Congratulations to You, Sir, and congratulations to the people of The United States Of America, for having made it possible for this day to mark the beginning of a "New Era of Hope !"

Lucien Bonnet

PLease, SEE :
LETTER TO POPE JOHN-PAUL II
in "BILL A RI AND THERE WAS LIGHT !"
http://www.contact-canadahaiti.ca

Posted by: Lucien BONNET | February 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary: start planning your exit strategy. Your days are numbered. When Obama outperforms you in Texas and Ohio, what little support you have will dwindle quickly. Your campaign money will dry up, your remaining superdelegates will jump to Obama quickly, and you will be under more and more pressure to GET OUT OF THE RACE.

Don't fret. I hear you can get a really good deal on land in Arkansas these days. And there are some cute little retirement villages that would love to have you and Bill join them. In fact, maybe you can get involved investing in other land deals down there... a la Whitewater.

Posted by: Gary | February 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is an experienced, qualified, confident candidate applying for a job, and doing it very well. She is the obvious candidate for this job.

Barack Obama is leading a crusade; a latter day Peter the Hermit, he offers oratorically inspired visions of the New Jerusalem.

How can a solid, experienced job applicant compete with a charismatic crusade?

Posted by: John | February 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

What I find ironic is that you can't see to find any "errors" with Obama; however, having minimal experience in Washington it is hard to find errors when you haven't done much. I also find it insane that people are rallied around this message of hope when that's all it is. . .a bunch of blah, blah, blah.

The political analysts are so dumb they basically say that Obama & Clinton's health care plans are basically the same but they are not. With Obama's plan, those who chose not to have insurance still get the option of going to the hospital to get services and who do you think ends up footing that bill? Oh yeah, we do. For a democratic candidate to say that they would look at maybe penalizing someone if that happened shows how naive he is. It is something that has happened for years and it isn't going to magically stop. It is the same thing as those who play the welfare system, his message of "hope" isn't going to magically change the world and I just hope people take off their blinders soon enough to see it.

Posted by: James | February 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Gary F, quit spamming all of the message boards. That's the second place in a row that I've seen the exact same post from you. Fake "grass-roots" support is called astroturf. Your posts sure smell like it.

Posted by: Scott | February 22, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm 82 years old, been a Democrat all those years. If Obama becomes the Democrat canidate, I'll switch to Republican. I can't imagine anyone selling out to a Muslin or some one who failed to salute our anthem and refused to use our Bible to take the oath of office.
Here in Texas we have a lot of Hypocritical voters ( Republicans voting in Dem. primary) that never intended to vote Democrat in Nov. This is true in most states. Hopefully our Super Delegates see this and discount the votes accordingly. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should be stripped of their vote. Clinton carried their state and they are publicly supporting Obama. What a shame to our party.

Posted by: Glen Arthur | February 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

obama can and will debate circles around mrs senator hillary clinton, john mccain and all the rest. intrade markets are betting 81.5% chances on this guy. his popularity on yahoo! and intnet buz in each seperate state is 60% to 70%. he is not just an idle visionary, he is the real mccoy/all his stances on the issues are clearer &more well-thought-out than hillary's and others more experienced than he is. he will sweep texas+ohio+PA

Posted by: dave | February 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I am sick and tired of Hillary running on her husband's resume, and I am a white woman, but Hillary was not President, her husband was. If she was that involved, he was a pretty bad President.

When she starts running for President, she moves 50 M in investments in things like Wal-Mart to other places (she never paid attention so she says)? She "changes her mind" about NAFTA after enthusiastically supporting it for the previous 20 plus years (and I am supposed to believe that I can trust a last minute change of mind)? I am supposed to respect her for standing by her philandering man? That is a good example for women? Why did she stay, loyalty or so she could run on HIS resume? Her "experience" is exactly what I don't want to see in the white house.

I will be voting for Barack Obama. Why? He didn't vote for Iraq and he had the foresight to realize what a mistake that would be. He could have had a cushy job but he helped the poor instead and I respect that. He is obviously a doer and he has a much cooler head than Hillary, who IMHO can be very emotional which is not a quality I want in a President, I want one who can keep their head and think clearly and make good decisions, not "change their mind" as it is convenient like Hillary does.

Hillary is not ready to be President. Maybe if she can go the next 8 years without "changing her mind" on things that affect the future of this country, she can run then.

BTW Democrats, if you nominate Hillary, I will vote for McCain, and so will a majority of independents who think just like I do, you should keep that in mind.

Posted by: Cyndi | February 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't appear that anyone has taken notice of the irony in the many things that Obama doesn't say. He carefully avoids any mention that would paint Muslims in a bad light. Especially curious is his avoidance of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hmmm. He never mentioned the Torah when bragging about his rounded education in religion,ie. the bible, the koran, and the Bagvadgita. he downplays his Muslim fathers and his education in Muslim schools along with his catholic education. He seldom mentions the degradation of women in Eastern countries esp. among the Muslim comunity. He never mentions the promotion of sex with children in the Koran where many believe pedophilia to have originated. His background is sketchy at best and resembles nothing American.

Posted by: lisa | February 22, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

One more thing I want to say because I am sick of the misrepresentations.

The Clintons were not responsible for the boom time caused by computers. It would have happened no matter who was President, and they don't deserve credit. It happened because personal computers became readily available and were bought by businesses and consumers, because hardware and software were made for those computers, because of the y2k scare and the dot coms that came from that and the rise of the Internet. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with any of that except that he stayed out of the way for the most part, I will give him credit for staying out of the way.

I do, however, give Bill Clinton full credit for making sure NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO were established, and even making them priorities and pushing them through. Gee, thanks so much Bill. Maybe you could have at least reviewed NAFTA before you pushed it through? Maybe you could have thought more about the future instead of how you "appeared" in the moment? It is all smoke and mirrors in my opinion.

I hope those in the manufacturing states realize what Hillary's real record is before they vote.

Posted by: Cyndi | February 22, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Lisa, CNN did a whole expose about Obama that discredited the ridiculous accusations that people such as you make against him.

Maybe you should watch it.

There was also one on MSNBC recently that told the truth about Obama, as opposed to these ridiculous accusations by people who will say anything to get what they want.

Posted by: Cyndi | February 22, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"I'm 82 years old, been a Democrat all those years. If Obama becomes the Democrat canidate, I'll switch to Republican. I can't imagine anyone selling out to a Muslin or some one who failed to salute our anthem and refused to use our Bible to take the oath of office.
Here in Texas we have a lot of Hypocritical voters ( Republicans voting in Dem. primary) that never intended to vote Democrat in Nov. This is true in most states. Hopefully our Super Delegates see this and discount the votes accordingly. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should be stripped of their vote. Clinton carried their state and they are publicly supporting Obama. What a shame to our party."

Why wait till he secures the nomination? You should switch over now because you belong with all of the whacko's who believe in destroying constitutional rights and freedom of religion on the basis of this being a so-called "Christian Nation". You can take "our bible" with you.

For the record I served in the military and it sickens me that people try to cast this man as unpatriotic because his faith is different than theirs. Exactly the type of oppression that the true patriots of this country (our forefathers) were trying to get away from. Exactly the freedoms we fight for today. You sir, are the hypocrite.

Posted by: Marc O'Leary | February 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Glen Arthur, you fell for the scam that's being spread around.

Check out the Snopes research on it
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

BTW CJ, do you speak for all of Senator Clinton's supporters?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 22, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Please spare a thought for the position America holds in the world power hierarchy. Electing someone like Obama as President is absurd as far as the rest of the world is concerned. I suppose America will now join the African Union (the old OAU!). This is not a racist comment - but no matter what his early life history may be - he is basically a Kenyan & look at how they are going about running their country!! No matter all the White mother; Indonesian step-father and Hawaiin education - Obama Hussain is not what the world deems an AMERICAN & he is not someone other world leaders can look up to - unless it's in wonderment at how many dumb Democrats he's conned!
Hillary and indeed the entire Hilly-Billy & 2 for the price of one deal just seems so much more logical, tried & tested. People world leaders can do business with & respect. Even Hillary's educational credentials & professional background surely trump Obama Hussain's..??
Indeed the only reason I think Obama is actually winning - notwithstanding what the Pollsters are reporting is the fact that this is the first RACIST vote in America - so what if it's the Black's that are the racists here - Their 90% and higher turnouts for Obama is the beginning of the division of America on racial lines once again - and all the White apologists who can't see this and who continue to support Obama apart from being unpatriotic are plainly trying to preserve a veneer of colour-blindness they think they are projecting by voting cafe-au-lait.. If the blacks are not making any such concessions & this is all out race based - I think the Clooneys & Kennedys of the world should do some introspection too.
I hope that sense finally prevails & the great American nation is not made the laughing stock of the world.
We can clearly see from the outside what's going on.. Why on earth can't you..?
Hope the Super delegates do their bit for Hlllary since the Democrat electorate seems to be doing exactly what Obama has admitted doing - SMOKING SOMETHING they shouldn't be..... Pass the BONG please..

Posted by: Mid East | February 22, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

This clearly demonstrates what this race will come down to.

Racists and religious fanatics vs sane people.

Posted by: Vasya | February 22, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama has won 10 straight states. Check it out. Democrats never carry those states anyhow. They should be ignored and Florida and Michigan votes should be approved and I'll be they are. The Democrats need both states in the General election. If that prevails Clinton would be ahead today. Can't ignore them.

Posted by: Glen Arthur | February 22, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The more I see Obama the less likely I am to vote for him and I am a Democrat. He just talks too much, he seems to have all the answers, he seems to know more than everyone else, he has become totally annoying to watch and listen to. He seems to be a lot of hot air. The press has totally pushed this empty suit. I'm sick of the press bias.

Posted by: R.Henry | February 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

It is a sad reflection on the state of our country, that, in spite of broad availability of good information to the contrary, people continue to paint Barack Obama as a closet Muslim anti-American terrorist (among so many other things). Interesting that the people that make such statements offer no support for such statements and yet continue to broadcast this tripe through the blogs and news commentary. If you are truly that uninformed, please spare the rest of us the waste of perfectly good internet bandwidth. Alternately, I will be happy to listen to your rants if you can please provide one authoritative source (and no, I don't consider your brother-in-law or the guy at the local market an authoritative source any more than I do your own delusional, unsubstantiated views). If you cannot do so, please spare me your uninformed, libelous speculation (and please feel free to turn in your voter registration card if you are not prepared to do honest research into the background of the candidates so that you can develop a reasoned, informed opinion based on facts). Support whom you wish but please get your facts straight.

Posted by: Dave | February 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY RODMAN CLINTON IS THE VERY BEST QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,TO BE VERY PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN,ONE NATION,UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. SHE HAS THE EXPERIENCE,SHE KNOWS THE INS/AND OUTS/ YOU PEOPLE WOULD NOT WANT TO GIVE YOUR JOBS UP FOR SOMEONE WHO DID NOT KNOW A THING ABOUT WHAT YOU DO EVERYDAY TO SOMEONE,FRESH OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL AND NOT TRAINED TO DO. OBAMA'S TIME WILL COME. BUT 2008 IS FOR HILLARY RODMAN CLINTON. SO SAVE YOUR ENTHUSIAM FOR OBAMA IN 2016,HE'LL HAVE HIS EXPERIENCE HE NEEDS.

Posted by: DEMOCRAT FOR HILLARY CLINTON | February 22, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary failed the most important test of this decade. She voted to authorize the war in Iraq. She is running a financially reckless and ill concieved campaign. She is not showing leadership. I don't understand how anyone can honestly ignore these facts!

Posted by: Hillary is disqualified | February 22, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

barack obama for KING!

Posted by: michael20251 | February 22, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I GUESS MOST POINTS CLEAR THEMSELVES EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE DEBATED BY THOSE WHOSE IDEAS ARE COLORED WITH BASICALLY SLANTED MOTIVES EITHER FOR OR AGAINST OBAMA OR CLINTON.THE UNITED STATES STANDS OUT AMONG A BIG NUMBER OF NATIONS WHOSE FATE GOES NOWHERE FOR SUPPORT EXCEPT THE WHITE HOUSE,SO THIS APPROACHING U.S ELECTION IS NOT ONLY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO DECIDE ON,BUT FOR THE WORD AT LARGE TO FOCUS COMMON SENCE AND OBJECTIVE REASONING ON IN ORDER TO HELP THE COUNTRY THAT THEY LOOK TO FIND ANSWERS TO THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINAION STANDSTILL THAT PETRIFIES THE FEET OF EVERYONE THERE AT THE TURN OF EVERY NEXT HOUR.
MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE UNITED STATES NOW IS THE RESTORATION OF ITS POLITICAL CREDIBILITY THROUGH A NUMBER OF KEY CHANNELS ONE OF WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL RECONCILIATION,TRUST,RESPECT AND SUPPORT.THUS,THE UNITED STATES CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE INTERNATIONALLY PERCEIVED INTEGRITY AND LOVELINESS OF BARAK OBAMA TO WIN BACK ITS NOTED,BUT DISTROYED,MARK OF LIBERTY,EQUALITY,SUPERIORITY AND INTEGRITY BECAUSE MORE COURAGE,CAPABILITY,INTEGRITY, VASTNESS OF SOCIAL PROWESS,ADDMINISTRATIVE POTENTIALITY AND DIPLOMATIC SHREWDNESS IS ATTRIBUTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE TO OBAMA THAN TO CLINTON.
THERE IS NO POINT DOUBTING IT THAT OBAMA IS THE MAN,BECAUSE THE POINTS FOR ARGUMENT HAVE SETTLED THEMSELVES IN HIS FAVOUR.

Posted by: Rabiu Pam-uku,NIGERIA. | February 22, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with those pushing Hillary as the most qualified to lead. Certainly, she has more Washington experience and probably a tigher grasp of policy. However, I look to the effectiveness of Obama's and Hillary's campaign as the closet test we have to how effective each will be in running a large organization such as the country. Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever had to lead as large an organization as their presidential campaigns. Given Obama's masterfull job leading and organizing his campaign, I'd give him the edge in leading our country. He's proven he can attract and manage a diverse group people.

Posted by: JP | February 22, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Glen Arthur, your logic to ignore delegates ten states but to summarily include delegates from two states where none of the Democratic candidates campaigned escapes me.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | February 22, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Another thing that strikes one - Why is Obama Hussain so ready to repudiate his Father & the Religion he was born into - Islam..? He easily admits to keeping a Quran in the house and has undergone Muslim religious instruction. The fact that he claims to have suddenly discovered Christ and his faith seems directly proportional to his electoral ambitions displays a fickle mind that can easily give up one faith for another. It is not as if he was no stranger to Islam since in his formative years his mother chose to marry 2 Muslim husbands in quick succession. And the ever present Quran in the house...
What is also suprising is the fact that neither his father or stepfather were American citizens by either birth or naturalization. So if suddenly we are to assume that all his faith is suddenly discovered only whilst in his American Mother's parent's custody - it speaks very poorly of the 2 Muslim Husbands his mother married! As is well known, Muslim father's will go to any lengths to see to a son being made a Muslim. Obama has NEVER ANSWERED if he was circumcised by Islamic rites.. I think that would be a direct indicator of where his religious upbringing began. I'm sure Michelle has questioned him on this and it's about time he came (no pun intended) clean on this.. it is direct PHYSICAL PROOF which can STOP the rumor mongering in it's tracks... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW...

Posted by: Mid East | February 22, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

People's attention should be lifted from such zero-issues as race,gender or sheer partiality and be rested on the more paramount concern of comparative wisdom.
As far as I am concerned,and I have the United States at heart,Barak Obama is wiser.If you cannot believe me,compare them and find out for yourself.
There is only one way for the citizens of the United States to be patriotic at this time,and that is by changing with Obama.And there is definitely one way for the citizens of the United States to be anti-United States at this time,and that is by changing either with Hillary or McCain.

Posted by: Rabiu Pam-uku,Nigeria | February 22, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I won't need your permission on anything I do. I have earned my rights. Bet you have never had a JOB. Sound black to me.

Posted by: Glen Arthur | February 22, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters and the press talk a lot about how well his campaign has been run. This I presume means that they think this reflects how well he will run the country.

Need,I remind everyone of how well the GW Bush campaigns
were run? Look what we got !

The fact is that Obama had not made the most of his Washington
experience thus far. He has not voted for 60% of the business in
the US Senate. Organizing on the streets of Chicago in no
way qualifies a person to be the President of the US.
He continualy makes gaffes such " I have the support of all
the major papers in Texas." He said this on the campus
of the U of Texas at Austin. Today the student newpaper
at UT Austin took offense and ENDORSED Hilary Clinton.
The US is a big place and it takes years to get a feel for the
entire country. Hilary by virtue of her association will Bill
Clinton and her independent record as young Democrat
during the McGovern campaign -has been everywhere in
America.

She is ready NOW .

Mr. Obama needs just little more time.

Posted by: Irma | February 22, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama's support base (Rabiu Pam-Uku) from Nigeria is a bit misplaced. We all know how African Nations are run - or NOT RUN. But when it comes to EMPTY TALK they beat the rest of the world hollow....
HEY didn't that just describe OBAMA HUSSEIN..??

ALL SHOW.... NO GO..

IS OBAMA CIRCUMCISED BY ISLAMIC RITES..?

Posted by: Mid East | February 22, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Just wait, if Obama should get the Nomination, Karl Rove will tear him to bits. He will want to go back to Africa to save his hide. He aint heard anything yet. Just mark my word.

Posted by: Glen Arthur | February 22, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Just wait, if Obama should get the Nomination, Karl Rove will tear him to bits. He will want to go back to Africa to save his hide. He aint heard anything yet. Just mark my word.

Posted by: Glen Arthur | February 22, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama's support base (Rabiu Pam-Uku) from Nigeria is a bit misplaced. We all know how African Nations are run - or NOT RUN. But when it comes to EMPTY TALK they beat the rest of the world hollow....
HEY didn't that just describe OBAMA HUSSEIN..??

ALL SHOW.... NO GO..

IS OBAMA CIRCUMCISED BY ISLAMIC RITES..?

Posted by: Mid East | February 22, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

O. B. A. M. A. C. L. I. N. T.O.N.
OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
BRILLIANT NOT AS MUCH
WORLDWIDE/HOME HOME
CHANGE NOT AS MUCH
BETTER GOOD
ADMIRED LIKED
STRONG NOT AS MUCH
CONTEMPORARY NOT AS MUCH
STRAIGHT NOT AS MUCH
SUPPORTIVE SUPPORTING
CARING CARED FOR
OUTSTANDING NOT AS MUCH
RECOMMENDED CONTEMPLATED
Varify by yourself,anywhere,anyhow,anytime,any day



Posted by: Rabiu Pam-uku.(a.poundz@yahoo.com) | February 22, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

If Obama gets it???? Karl Rove will make him wish he was still in Africa. The mud will fly.

Posted by: Glen Arthur | February 22, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Very easy to decide between the two. Look at how well Obama managed his campaign and came from nowhere. Look at how badly Clinton managed her campaign despite all the advantages that her husband offered her. Whether you're running a campaign or a country, you do not give responsibility to people based on loyalty, like she does, but on competence, like Obama does. So get real, Clinton supporters, and quit the Hillary cult. She's failed at evey single thing she's ever done (other than masterfully managing the bimbo eruptions).

Posted by: Constantine | February 22, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Glen Arthur, are you the Anti-Rufus?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 22, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

What makes Clinton so qualified & competent over Obama? Look at the way she's ran her campaign, she has blown through over 100 million dollars, without competing in every state, grossly overspent the funds on unnecessary items, didn't carefully plan for the campaign for no longer than Feb. 5, had to fund her own campaign, relied on a flawed strategy to skip state caucuses, etc. How is she more competent and qualified than Obama to budget trillions of dollars when she can't budget 100 millions from her own campaign? How is her decision making process better than Obamas, when she allowed a grassroots campaign to overtake 30 point leads in some states, and beat her in decision & stratgy? Going by the way she runs her campaign, which candidate is best served to run the country?

Posted by: John | February 22, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

The americans vote like a third world country now...they are not using there brain...If someone can make more noise they go along with them...welcome america...if Obama change his slogan he might change what he copy or make more better about it, but now we condone this type of copying...this is now america we are not ashame for this type of things...no matters. how can i explain this to my children...go america copy the chinese way also...we are the xerox of the world...now.

Posted by: Collit | February 22, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record... Obama, his church and the media have provided lots of facts to prove that is not Muslim.

However, I don't think anyone really needs to provide proof that his isn't MUSLIN. I'm pretty sure it's impossible for one to practice being finely woven cotton as a faith.

If you insist on spewing thoughtless, racist and ignorant remarks, could you at least find a 'hicksRus' or 'uneducated and classless' forum rather than sullying a respectable news outlet for the rest of us?

Posted by: Ignorance is bliss | February 22, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Glen Arthur is just frustrated that NONE of his dreams have ever come true for him. So he directs his frustrations to HATE. He thinks by hating and insulting black people he will feel better; strong symptoms of ALL Losers.

FACT: Educated, Successful Americans (Whites) VOTE for Obama; Unsuccessful, Uneducated, frustrated, Ignorant Americans VOTE for Hillary...ACROSS ALL STATES, WHY? Because the Uneducated still have the MIND-SET of 1900 but living in 2008.

Posted by: Collins | February 22, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Who decided that being the President's wife was tantamount to having actual political experience?

I'm an accountant's wife and while I understand the basic lingo, believe me, you do not want me running your company's financials or doing your taxes!

I'm so tired of people trying to make this about race or gender. I'm not voting for Obama because he's black and I'm not voting against Clinton because she's a woman. I'm voting for the candidate that I feel is intelligent, has great ideas and can get the job done.

Posted by: Ignorance is bliss | February 22, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

I am happy to read many comments favouring Hillary Clinton. She is indeed the best qualified of the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. I just want to add one more reason for people not to vote for Obama. His speeches are like fidel Castro's in the first years of the Cuban revolution. Is that the kind of change his followers want for America? god protect us from such disaster!
Clinton is the only one that truly represents our values, and also has the capacity to make America go back to the years of success.
Obama is the recipient of the antí-Bush sentiment, like the anti_Batista sentiment in Cuba made people bleive in someone like Castro. Obama is going make America another Venezuela, Bolivia, or Nicaragua. If he ever becomes a president, you will see him wanting to modify the Constitution to consolidate his power. I don't want to vote for McCain, or any less evil, but Obama is the evil number one!

Posted by: Maria Lopez | February 22, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Okay folks...LISTEN...OBAMA GAVE A SPEECH ABOUT THE WAR -- got it! He was NOT IN CONGRESS WHEN THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND HE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE SECURITY BRIEFS!! As a matter of fact, he stated in one of the debates, he said if he received "credible evidence" he would take such actions himself!! Funny! He has also said he would BOMB PAKISTAN whether they wanted us there or NOT! Sounds just like GEORGE BUSH! Thought he was about change!! Sounds like more of the same!! He has voted THREE TIMES to FUND the WAR you idiots! I am so glad you all think he had a crystal ball back then -- you must have forgotten how he AGREED with the wonderful GEORGE BUSH and his WAR STRATEGY AT THE TIME which was part of his speech that he took off of his web site. Wake up folks! He's full of it! He doesn't know economics, he doesn't know foreign policy, he doesn't know domestic policy...what does he know? Aren't we tired of an unqualified president? Look what we've had for the past seven years? UNQUALIFIED, GREAT SPEECHES!!!! Sounds like more of George Bush!! Read some of his speeches!! This man is running his campaign the same way!! By the way -- "Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.

A Series of Bombings

The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s -- including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that ``I don't regret setting bombs.'' ..."Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said Ayers ``does not have a role on the campaign.'' Ayers said he had no comment on his relationship with Obama." -- Do we want a president who has been associated with known terrorists and bombers? Is this the kind of Democrat we want in the White House "securing" our country? Along with a wife who says she has never been proud of her country in all of her adult life before now? Why now?

Posted by: Concerned American | February 22, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton energizes the Republican base more than Sen. McCain. I have great respect for her, but electing Sen. Clinton guarantees four more years of intense partisanship and gridlock. Sen. Obama inspires and will bring the country together. His campaign, nearly flawless, speaks to his competence. He is the best chance for Democrats come November.

Posted by: rg | February 22, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

For those who want to read the story for themselves about Senator Obama's wonderful "friendly ties" check it our for yourself. It was written by Timothy J. Burger, Feb 15, 2008 on Bloomberg:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080215/pl_bloomberg/a9cjxfxamhn0;_ylt=AoOvqSMW3vw.gYikEW1BL6Wog9IF.
While you're at it...you may want to really check up on Senator Obama's Senate voting record as well and not just what he says. Do your own research folks!!!!

Posted by: Concerned American | February 22, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

And one more thing...as for his "flawless campaign"...just like his comment in another debate -- he needs sticky notes to keep up with things that will happen in less than two minutes. He has to have others doing things for him. He's not a CEO folks, he's not a manager, he's a GREAT speaker!! That's not what makes a good president!

Posted by: Concerned American | February 22, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I believe that electing Obama for president would be healthy for America, and we'll have an opportunity to restore our credibility around the world. It's about time to change our image, and to stop "the business as usual" Washington culture of corruption, and special groups of interest controlling the government. That this country needs a dramatic change, it is obvious, and Obama is the man.

Posted by: Richard | February 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

BTW Democrats, if you nominate Hillary, I will vote for McCain, and so will a majority of independents who think just like I do, you should keep that in mind.

Posted by: Cyndi | February 22, 2008 05:56 PM

----------------------------------

People who think like you are called incoherent, not independent, keep that in mind.

Posted by: wolfman | February 22, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh my goodness! Someone who, in his youth, used to be a member of a radical left-wing group (but who is now a respected college professor) gave Obama $200? How scary is that?! Because I bet two hundred dollars buys a whole lot of political favors and influence these days.

Posted by: Crystal | February 22, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow, after reading this I am sickened at how many ignorant people populate this country. I am not voting based on a color or gender. I am voting for the person who I feel will take this country in a new direction. As a white woman, my vote in the primary went to Obama and will hopefully go to him again in November.

What appeals to me about Obama, is he flat out says WE need to change this country. He does not say HE is going to do it all for us and make it all better. He tells the unvarnished truth that we all need to work together to get things back on track. Hilary is condescending and acts like we are idiots if we don't buy her schtick. Six months ago I was going to vote for Hilary and then the more I heard her I remembered how much I disliked her during the previous Clinton Regime.

If Obama is not on the ticket, this independent vote goes to McCaine.

Posted by: ebn | February 22, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

There are alot of us out there who won't vote for Obama in the general election--even if it means turning our backs on the Dems. If "the party" is going to select a candidate for POTUS on the basis of rhetoric like not being into "business as usual in Washington, DC" then we're pretty much getting stuck with a dark, liberal Bush who is just as evangelical and just as unprepared. Why must voters swing from extremes like monkeys from trees? And why must voters follow this absurd monkey-see, monkey-do approach to determining to whom to award the precious vote?

Posted by: boopfeiffer | February 22, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

How does 'not being into business as usual in Washington DC' equate to a 'dark, liberal Bush'?

I, for one, am tired of pork barrel politics. And I know I'm not the only person in this country who complains about the way things are done. Yet when someone says they want to buck that system, we regard him as naive and foolish. How does that make sense?

Posted by: Crystal | February 22, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Why democrats have let republicans pick the democratic candidate that will run against theirs?

Are they choosing the one with best chances to defeat a republican candidate?

Will they remain faithful to the democratic candidate or will they support the republican one?

Are these rocket science questions?

Posted by: Nogenius | February 22, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Barack is the anit christ.. we will all burn for eternity if he wins.
This is 2008 NOT 1556, religion is a personal set of beliefs.
I´m so tired of living in a country were you have to belive or at least pretend you believe in a fairytale with NO evidence at all if you want some political power..

Id like to see a sane atheist or a christian that keeps his religious beliefs to him/herselves.

Your bible, your torah, your koran, your....

NOT MINE!

Thats all, no more supestition, no more medievel paranoia.

Posted by: Danne | February 22, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

These polls are suspect because some whites fib to pollsters about liking black candidates to avoid a negative reaction from black questioners. I once answered a (black) phone pollster negatively on Jesse Jackson and sensed her hostility. It would have been easier to lie - do pollsters realize this, and correct for it? I suspect not.

Posted by: KenG | February 22, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

here is something to think about nation. Regardless of Hillary's voting record we need her in the white house. Our country is hated worldwide. If Obama gets the democratic nomination, all the nascar watching, religious fundimentalist types that might have actually thought before voting, will now cast their votes for some republican and there goes the country on the rest of it's downhill slide. Obama can have it in 2016, we need Hillary now to start some form of damage control on this country. Obama please concede if you have a conscience and give a damn about the U.S.

Posted by: Bill | February 22, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I remember when America was the most respected country in the world. Not so anymore.

Just reading some of your comments indicate the level to which you have fallen. Obviously, it is an issue of leadership.

Obama may not have all the "experience", but he is a good listener and an influencial leader. That's what you need, for America has a lot of bright folks with a lot of brilliant ideas. Leadership is the issue.

Posted by: Michael, Guyana, South America | February 22, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I cannot fathom how any Democrat can state that he or she will vote for McCain if Hillary does not win the nomination. Do you know what you're saying? You would vote for 50 or 100 or more years in Iraq? You would vote for bombing Iran and a continued bellicose foreign policy? You would vote for continued tax cuts for the wealthy? You would vote for increasing the deficit? You would vote for the continued reduction of our civil rights and the trashing of our Constitution? You would vote for overturning Roe v. Wade and women's right to choose? After two terms of Bush/Cheney, Iraq, Katrina, the environment, the spending, in short the most disastrous administration ever, every Democrat should vote Democrat in November. Our candidate will be either Obama or Clinton and either one is a more positive alternative to McCain and Republican rule.

Posted by: Amy in CA | February 22, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I am a disgruntled Republican. I am ready to support Obama, but NO WAY will I ever support Hilary. It is not just the 24 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Hilary is only where she is today because of who she married. I could go into all her mess ups, but there is no reason to when you have something as glaring as her voting for the Iraq War (and never say ONE WORD against it until it became politically popular to do so) without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate.

She would not be as much of a buffoon as Bush, but pretty close!!

Posted by: tony | February 22, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Glen Arthur - please take your racist comments somewhere else. That might have been acceptable years ago, but it isn't now. It makes you look archaic and absurd. If you want to vote Republican that is your choice, but it doesn't say much for your Democratic roots. They must have been very flimsy to begin with if you would flip flop because someone of a different race may get the nomination. Frankly, with your way of thinking, I would be shocked if you actually voted for a woman. Karl Rove has no creditablity with any Democrats and many Independents, so his mud slinging will hold no water. Go back to your cave or double wide.

Posted by: Erin | February 22, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, can people realize that each candidates supporters are FOR their candidate and not AGAINST the other and in the end, the Democrats will unite behind the candidate we put forth? What's most disheartening is to read supporters bashing the other candidate. With Hillary supporters I guess it can be expected , given she's so DEVISIVE (i.e, stands for what she believes in and is willing to fight for it), but geez, if you're supporting a candidate calling for unity, maybe you oughta lead by example and stop the bashing. Unity begins at home.

Posted by: Jeffrey | February 22, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

The next president of the United States will be Barack Obama or John McCain. Hillary has so much negative baggage that she will drive independents like me to vote either for McCain or for a third-party candidate. Hillary is a grasping manipulator, not a figure who has any ability to mend the huge divisions in our country or to work in a bipartisan fashion with Congress. After the health care debacle she led in the early years of her husband's presidency, I wouldn't trust her to design a health care system for dogs.

Go Barack! Yes we can!

Posted by: Paul in Maryland | February 22, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

We need a President elected that our Congress will work with and that is only
Clinton.

Posted by: Robtatlas@yahoo.com | February 22, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick and tired of people saying how "Obama isn't American, he's Muslim"
1) He's Chrstian. He's part of a christion church in Illinois that he's been a part of as long as he's been in Illinois.
2) He did NOT go to a Madrassa in Indonesia. He went to a public school. CNN looked into it and it was a public school
3)He was not sworn in on the Koran, he was sworn in on the bible. All US senators are sworn in on the bible, like Obama
4) Yes his father was Muslim, but Obama was raised Christian. HIs father left him when he was two years old, so Obama didn't know his birth father.
5)Yes his middle name is Hussein...SO WHAT!
My middle name could be Christ, doen't mean i'm catholic, or it could be Moses, doesn't mean i'm Jewish. The person, not the name decides what religon they will be
6) He was BORN IN AMERICA! If he wans't born in America, then he wouldn't be able to run for president
7) The not saying the pledge of alleigance is a lie. I saw the so called "video" on youtube. It was a picture and you can't even tell whats going on. Is it after or before was started? it doesn't say and you can't tell

I hope this clears a few facts up. Im sick and tired of people posting lies, or misguided facts when they don't know what they're talking aout. Before you post something get som background info on your "facts"

Oh and for the people he say he hasn't had enough experience, he's served over 8 years as an elected official. In the Illinois Legislature, and the U.S Senate. Plus he taught Constitutional law in a college. Oh and hes mpore experienced now, then when Bill Clinton ran for president
(Hilary has had 7 years as an elected official)

Posted by: Christopher | February 22, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

to glenn arthur: sir, you have your facts all--well, i was gonna use aword they don't like here--i'll say " screwed up"...my man is not a muslim...i'm almost as old as you are, & really hope he gets elected--if someone of your bent doesn't try to assasinate him first...

Posted by: Mickeyd69 | February 22, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

To poor Glen Arthur, if that is your real name. You seem to be stuck on Obama's middle name, so I wonder if your real name is Richard, but you grew up with people calling you "Dick". I imagine it was a real slap in your face, two weeks ago when the "Grand Wizard" The K.K.K.came out and said he would vote for Obama, that anybody is better then (some word I wont say) Clinton.
To Middle East--if you knew what a real map looked like, you would know there is no middle east--it north africa, in addition i provided what you were to fearful to provide in all you ramblings. The truth
Interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open ?slots? in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet.
Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . . My last point: Obama needs name recognition, he needs to be among the people, so people feel like they have access to him. HRC's debate challenge is more about the fact that her campaign is running low on money and she gets free air-time without spending anything. Would you give up the chance to see 20,000 voters up close and personal to be on a televised debate? No way! Obama, stick to your guns. Debate on your terms, not Hillary's! Go Obama 2008!

Interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open ?slots? in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet.
Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . . My last point: Obama needs name recognition, he needs to be among the people, so people feel like they have access to him. HRC's debate challenge is more about the fact that her campaign is running low on money and she gets free air-time without spending anything. Would you give up the chance to see 20,000 voters up close and personal to be on a televised debate? No way! Obama, stick to your guns. Debate on your terms, not Hillary's! Go Obama 2008!

Interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open ?slots? in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet.
Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . . My last point: Obama needs name recognition, he needs to be among the people, so people feel like they have access to him. HRC's debate challenge is more about the fact that her campaign is running low on money and she gets free air-time without spending anything. Would you give up the chance to see 20,000 voters up close and personal to be on a televised debate? No way! Obama, stick to your guns. Debate on your terms, not Hillary's! Go Obama 2008!

Posted by: plb | February 22, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

This Canadian would be very disappointed to see Senator Obama as President. He needs to study more history and government so as to be ready later. Recently, he said that, if elected, he would immediately have a meeting with the President of Canada and the President of Mexico on NAFTA. It is appalling that a candidate for President knows so little that he thinks there is a President in Canada. A good President needs to know something about history so as to avoid mistakes of the past.

Posted by: ralph | February 22, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Let's get ahold of ourselves, folks! This threatening to take your marbles and go home if the other Democratic candidate is nominated has gone on too long! You are swaying NOBODY to your point of view, you are just venting.

Both candidates are qualified to serve as President. The information is out there. Obama introduced 200 pieces of legislation in the Illinois Senate in his two terms there. Clinton has introduced and passed some bills in the US Senate and the people of New York are satisfied with her work. Most of us have a favorite and some even strongly dislike the other Democratic candidate, but voting for an anti-choice candidate that wants to stay in Iraq up to 100 years, just because you don't get your way? Please.
I have kids, and I need a candidate who will at least try to act on these issues and many others for their sake.

Posted by: Denise | February 22, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Its unfortunate how much hate this forum is generating. It tells me that there are still some element of racism lurking in the hearts of many. Just reading some of the comments above point to this fact. it's disappointing. America should go back to leading the world again and these horrific and disturbing hate mails are not casting you folks in that light. You dont have to hate, tear down, malign, slander someone to make a point. Simply state your case in a decent, sane and responsible manner. Barak Obama has two types of people here, those who hate him vehemtly and those who love him passionately. I am worried about those who hate him and for some reason, I fear for his life. What if it becomes increasingly obvious that he will get the nomination and become the first black president of the USA, will his life be in danger? Will they let him live to be what he was elected to be? Will he survive the first three months of his Presidency? What will these haters do then? I am worried. America, this is your last shot to prove to the world that you can once again be trusted to be leader of the FREE world. Everyone around the world is watching, Will America really give a black man a chance of being its president? It remains to be seen. Its in your hands. History will be the judge. Meanwhile, the whole world is watching. Enough of the hate.

Posted by: love2008 | February 22, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I have seen all the comments and I have also seen that Hillary's supporters are talking bad about Obama and his supporters while they are being friendly to Hillary and her supporters. This is a good example of the spirit of friendly leadership,politics and going the right direction to uniting and changing the country for good. Let's be realistic and vote wisely for our good. Clinton has experience and can be carried along but Obama is the right person for the job.

Posted by: James | February 23, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Hillary did a superb job overall in the debate. Barack did well. Both are well-qualified candidates for the Oval Office, Hillary more so in terms of experience, Obama in terms of vision and guilessness. I was proud to be an American and a Democrat, watching the civilized, restrained, but intense debate between these two exceptional individuals.

Yet I sensed afterwards that Hillary is both fairly and unfairly laden with a lot of baggage in her quest. I heard remarks from the watchers in my area about her hair and her make-up. Nasty remarks about her slimy husand and his sexual antics. Cracks and questions about her 'iron-lady' demeanor: i.e., where is the 'real/soft' Hillary. A neighbor of mine who's a Republican told the local voter registrars that he was a Democrat so he could vote for Obama in the D. primary here, because "I can't stand that b**tch". Sure sounds like a LOT of the country just can't stand seeing a tough, competent, ambitious Woman In Charge, doesn't it?

My observation is disinterested: I voted for O. in the primary. Now that I've had a good look at Hillary on the griddle with Obama, however, I'm wavering. She's really Good!

Posted by: yrs_truly | February 23, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

TELEGRAM TO HILLARY:

HILLARY, IT'S OVER ! STOP. SORRY, BUT YOU LOST! STOP
OBAMA IS NOW THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
STOP
IT'S OVER! STOP
WISCONSIN CLINCHED IT! STOP
OBAMA IS GOING TO BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT! STOP
HILLARY, STOP
STOP!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary cannot even manage her own campaign...how the heck does she think she is going to manage the federal government?

She stated that she is going to balance the budget...but she cannot even manage her campaign budget.

She states that she has the experience the run our country...but her decisions for her campaign have cost her $$$ with less than stellar results.

She has lost again and again, she has over-spent her campaign money and had to borrow $5 million from her private stash...and she has yet to release her tax returns (so much for transparency).

If her management of her campaign is any indication of her managment skills, readiness to lead, and to be fiscally responsible, she has failed on all accounts.

Hillary's selection of campaign advisors is telling...if her cabinet selections are anything like her selection of campaign advisors, God help us all!!

Posted by: Stefanie | February 23, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

If honorable Senator Clinton dose'nt make in Ohio and Texas, she should concede.
It's best for her to be a running mate of Senator Obama as Vice President for a sure win of the Democratic party in the upcoming November General election.

Posted by: jhunserv | February 23, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

If honorable Senator Clinton dose'nt make in Ohio and Texas, she should concede.
It's best for her to be a running mate of Senator Obama as Vice President for a sure win of the Democratic party in the upcoming November General election.

Posted by: jhunserv | February 23, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Hey "mid east" I'm sick of your racist rants. Take the hatred elsewhere, it makes you look so ignorant.

Posted by: fred | February 23, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

This is the first time I've read the comments on one of the blogs at this site. I'm amazed at the shameful collection of ignorant, uninformed, sexist, racist and generally irrational arguments. Pretty scary that some of these people actually vote!! It sure explains a lot about the mess this country is in.

Posted by: Michael in Columbus | February 23, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

To Mid East, it is very clear that you are a racist.obviously you are leprosy and cafe au lait is better than that any day.I am glad you let us know how ignorant you are.people like you should be locked up somewhere because they are still evolving.Hopefully, by the next century you will be ready to exist as a human.

Posted by: mii | February 23, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

Hey guys.. I am an outsider to this debate.. but still i have been following these discussions.. I dont support either HC or BO, but i dont know what this debate of one being good and other being not so good it all about.. EVERYONE knows why Obama is winning .. it is not about Experience or Knowledge.. it is all about his support among a section of the society which is creating ALL the difference. People might argue that he is generating some sizeable support from every community, but still the critical differentiator remains the same. To me, the contest was over in the Iowa primary (was that the first one??) itself.. once the African-American community saw that they had a real chance to push a candidate through, they all came out in even bigger numbers. I would say Hillary is right.. how do you expect anyone to run a country when he's still not run a state .. a person who's agenda is as narrow as "CHANGE" - would like someone to ask Obama what "change" he wants to bring abt.. and I am sure he will answer "bring stars and moon to the earth" and little more. Everyone should be aware that systems take time to change.. it is in the best of society to create the best of what is available rather than trying to change it! He IS all talk and no essence!!!

Hail Obama!

Posted by: BA | February 23, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Having read the numerous comments in this string, I decided to add my thoughts. To clairify why I have my opinoins, I have over 20 years of doing business globally. I have had the opportunity to personally experience the changes in Japan (leader to falling behind), China (closing fast on being number one), Europe (struggling to right their ship, but making progres), and other regions/countries. I have had the "pleasure" of trying to explain our country getting so absorbed in Bill Clinton and his affair and then the curent George Bush's war. Intelligent, world knowledgable people in many, many countries do not understand how such a powerful and great country can make such large mistakes. Among the people that I have had the good fortune to meet and get to know are leaders of Global Fortune 100 companies and senior government officials in leading global economies. Our Democratic primary season is raising the same question. These leaders can not understand in any way how we would turn over the management of our country to a candidate that has no proven ability to manage any busienss or government, plus has such a minimum of understanding of global affairs (their opinion). I have lived through the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and the current Bush. Neither of these men were prepared to lead this country in global political matters. In my opinion Senator Obama shares their total lack of necessary experience to lead this country globally through the next few years. Based on this cinclusion, I will vote for Senator Clinton or Senator McCain. There is no way that I can vote for a candidate without experience in global affairs. Our contry as too much to lose by having a novice in the Oval Office. I respect Senator Obama. I feel he has a great deal to offer our country, but not as President for the next 4 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2008 4:16 AM | Report abuse

Everytime I read or hear any political talk I want to scream. STOP it , both the candidates are great people, its their supporter who are nut cases. Just shut up an vote!This is a weird way to run a country Not that anyone wants to hear my thoughts,but a Clinton Obama ticket equals success for 16 years, which it will take to clean up this mess!!

Posted by: olivia | February 23, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

To pib
You have too much time on your hands, get a job!!

Posted by: olivi | February 23, 2008 4:55 AM | Report abuse

Experience is not everything. In Britain, our experienced finance minister became Prime Minister last summer, and was touted as the man with the most experience to take on the job. He has been trailing in the polls for months, and is not seen as doing a good job.
I agree with the posters who claim that Obama lacks foreign policy experience. But, McCain seems determined to pursue the same failed policies of the current administration. If Obama appoints someone good (Rubin?) as Secretary of State, and deploys his charm when dealing with other nations, then America will once again be able to be loved openly by people all over the world. Equally, Clinton would probably be highly effective.
The biggest worries that the British have are: that the next President will focus on wars rather than diplomacy, and the state of the American economy. When your economy struggles, ours suffers terribly. We, therefore, have a vested interest in American economic prosperity. Obama's economic advisors seem to really know their stuff. So, in spite of his inexperience, he may prove to be good in office.
Lastly, none of the senators has run a business or a state, which is why I was surprised that Bill Richardson, a successful governor with a wealth of experience and good ideas, did not end up as the nominee for the Democrats.
I do agree, though, with the point about Obama being full of hot air, and Clinton being superb on fine detail. She could have been the next Harry Truman.

Posted by: Olly | February 23, 2008 6:22 AM | Report abuse

GO REPUBLICANS!

Posted by: NORMAN | February 23, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

I belong to a country where an inexperienced person was asked to lead the country simply because his mom, who was heading the govt at that moment of time was gunned down. God only knows what we went through because of a novice. Clearly Obama should run for Vice Presidency.. get the necessary experience and then I am sure "his time would have come!" He should not jeopardize the entire country with his sweet talk! I think more abt people saying "HC is spoiling Democratic party's chances" they should think abt what good Obama can do for the country. His time would surely come, but may be 4 years down the lane.

Posted by: BA | February 23, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Two things that soured me on Obama:
#1:We want one of our own,and now we have a chance to shine.
#2:The young people who for the most part know nothing about making a living and raising a family.Neither of these reasons qualify them to vote for the next president of the U.S. Obama has made a lot of empty promises with no plan as how to back them up.I have seen what a unqualified president has done to our country,and I do not want to see it happen all over again.The blacks admit that they have turned their backs on the one person who has helped them more than any other person in history,and the young people are in the idolizing mode.Obama may make a great president in a few years,but his time is not now.Anybody who says" I want to make America cool again"is pandering to the kids,and has no business being president.Have you ever questioned where all his campaign money came from? It sure did not come from the poor blacks and the live at home kids that look at him as an idol.Wake up and smell the coffee!

Posted by: Jim | February 23, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

"You would vote for overturning Roe v. Wade and women's right to choose?"

Obama voted present rather than no on many votes regarding abortion in the Illinois senate. I question whether he supports Roe vs Wade. Is there a vote that shows his commitment to Roe vs Wade?

The name calling to one another does not help either candidate in November. Obama says he's about unifying the electorate; I think he needs to rein in the supporters who bash those of us with legitimate concerns about who we would vote for in Nov. should it be a Obama/McCain run. Obama supporters seem to think any Clinton supporter should vote for Obama if he is nominated, but there is not the same commitment should Clinton be nominated.

Posted by: gndlf | February 23, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Karl Rove? Yeah, him and all his cronies stole the last election from the Democrats and he ain't going to get away with it, this time. No, him and his brother Bush will be screaming in pain. OBAMA is the ONLY candidate and not even McCain will be able to stop him. Personally, a man like McCain will be fairly easy to blow out in the General election, because he is such a soft candidate. He will NEVER be prepared to be a President. Barack Obama is our ONLY good choice. I am a white man, 58 yrs old and a VOTER. thanks, everardo.

Posted by: everardo | February 23, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

You don't read much, do you gnif? If you did you would know that for strategic reasons the pro-choice support groups asked Obama to vote "Present" on the proposed anti-choice legislation. and that this was the equivalent of a "No" vote.

Also, for those "Democrats" who would consider voting for McCain. remember that he has publicly stated that, if given the chance, he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Alito. Imagine what THAT would do to "Roe v. Wade."

Posted by: MIkey | February 23, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Cyndi,
Get off your high horse and read what the Hillary supporters are saying here. I'm a registered Democrat and have voted that way for 20 years. If Obama is the nominee, I'll vote for McCain and a lot of Hillary's supporters are saying the same. So who cares if you'll vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. What a veiled and empty threat. The bottom line is that Hillary's supporters are not insignificant and neither are Obama's. In a fair number of cases, neither will vote for the other candidate handing the general election to McCain.

Who's fault is this? Obama's for not waiting until he had more experience and all of his supporters for being taken in my his "charisma". So he has charisma. Big deal. Cult leaders have charisma to the point where they can convince their followers to commit suicide. When Obama's volunteers are coached to not talk about the issues and tell people of how they "came" to Obama, what does it seem like to you? Oh wait, I forgot - you've had the wool pulled over your eyes, so you can't see!

Posted by: Janet | February 23, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"My fellow Americans.I am optimistic that we can CHANGE the tone in Wash. Our nation must rise above a house divided.I know America wants reconciliation and unity and we must seize this moment and deliver. Together guuided by a spirit of common...courtesy we can unite and inspire American citizens. It is time to find common ground and build consensus to make America a beacon of opportunity." How eloquent is that? Sound like the message of change of Barack Obama? well, guess again. It is GWB, 2000. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU? We cannot afford another on-the-job training president. Go TX, OH, PA, Super-delegates...vote Hillary!

Posted by: MissRanchLady | February 23, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Rebuttle to Hillary's claim that she should be President because she'll be ready to start on day one:

1) How many great Presidents have been elected that never made that claim?

2) While she may be ready, it may take others a little longer to get used to a woman in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Dave | February 23, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Comparing comments made about Clinton vs Obama, reveals underlying racism. For instance, questions about Obama not being black enough; whereas no one asks whether Hillary is womanly enough. Or many say, it's the choice between a "black" and a "woman", as opposed to a "black man" and "white woman". More subtle still, but significant... apparent controversy of blacks voting for Obama, whereas a seemingly natural state for women voting for Clinton.

Posted by: ubovitall | February 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

1.) The only word I could come up with after reading all of these posts was 'WOW'. First off Obama is not Muslim and even if he were who cares? The last time I checked the Constitution there was freedom of religion in this country. Also Muslim and terrorist DO NOT go hand in hand. I suspect though that unless your a racist or an Obama hater trying to promote misconceptions, you would know these things. He is AMERICAN and that is all that matters.

2.) I supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because he was unknown to me and I knew that she was Bill's wife. She had all the name recognition, core democratic base, and media attention at the start of this race. When she had all these things in her favor it was hunky-dory. But now that these things have shifted Barack's way, it is supposed to be some kind of a media conspiracy. Um I don't think so, things have shifted this way because he has thoroughly out-organized and out-campaigned her to go along with the fact that he is far more likable. The news reports what people want to see, and thats not monotonous recitals of policy. When Hillary talks I think of a professor who lectures straight from the power point presentation compared to Barack who reminds me of a more engaging professor who creates his own notes.

3.) My support for candidates changed once I had started to do some research. When I saw Clinton's résumé compared to Obama's there was no doubt I had made a wrong first choice. Touting experience only works if you actually have some. Her résumé to put it quite plainly is lacking. In fact it is lacking more than Obama's and he is supposed to be the inexperienced one. Hers is inferior to his because even though she is 15 years older than him, he has been an elected official longer and authored/ sponsored MANYYY times more bills than her. After I found that out and numerous other tell tale facts by thoroughly researching their respective websites I was suddenly OVERWHELMINGLY for Barack. (This is not even taking into account the many different Clinton scandals, and Hillary's heavy handed tactics and failed health care reform in 1992.)

4.) Clinton's current health care plan is inferior to Barack's. His focuses on lowering its cost and making it mandatory for children while hers focuses on making it mandatory for everyone even if it has to be docked directly from your wages. Mandatory health care DOESN'T work on the state level as evidenced in Massachusetts. So how is it going to work on the national level?

5.) I went to YouTube and watched Obama unequivocally denounce the war on Iraq. In fact it was so thorough and concise that I was amazed at how this man hit the CURRENT situation there on the HEAD before the war even started. Saying he didn't have the same intelligence that Clinton was privy too is crap because she LITERALLY DID NOT personally read the intelligence report before she voted for the war. If I knew the war was a horrible idea and that Iraq had no WOMD, then I think she should have too. Barack knew.

6.) The assumption that Obama supporters are a cult is ridiculous. Obama has earned every single one of his supporters and he is actually now cutting into Clinton's base of support from mainly women and Latinos. Remember Obama has gone from an unknown to by all accounts probable democratic nominee. To call Obama's broad coalition of people of all different demographics a cult is very disingenuous. When a man has the courage to put himself out there talking about hope and unity and changing the corrupt institution that is Washington, the same people that are always complaining about how bad things are, are making excuses as to why they won't vote for him and why they will vote for more of the same. If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.

7.) McCain is not another Bush. He cares more about the environment and is a little more moderate. BUT, on one of the most major issues for democrats and independents he fails horribly. His position on the war in Iraq and his foreign policy agenda are both quite repulsive to me. (I thought all that white man's destiny crap was over?) Also he admittedly has no grasp of the economy.

8.) I have heard some very stupid comments such as Bush and Obama are similar. Bush was eloquent when he ran for president and look how he turned out. Are you F***ing kidding me? Are we talking about the same George stuttering Bush? The same guy that was the brunt of Saturday Night Live jokes for a full season? People don't try to justify your voting for Bush. There is absolutely no comparison between Bush and Obama. Record, intelligence, charisma, introspection and honesty are all in abundance for Obama and severely lacking for Bush.

To sum things up I have donated to Obama and will continue to do so and I am hoping he seals up the primary/ caucus season and the general election in November. If you people out there want a leader, not a war monger who will continue tax cuts for the rich vote Obama for POTUS.

Posted by: Truth Speaker | February 23, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

While Clinton has more foreign policy experience being first lady and on the armed services committee, Obama has a better foreign policy platform and world leaders and people prefer him. The most ridiculous attack is he wants to bomb our "friends" in Pakistan. On Jan. 29 insertion forces had a predator drone fire two hellfire missiles in Pakistan to kill no.6 in Al Qaeda Al Libbi. Sounds like Obama's platform is being used by our forces to kill our enemies in Pakistan. Clinton and Obama have platforms which are 90% congruent with major differences on foreign policy. Why Clinton's or Obama's people would not support the winner and vote for McCain escapes me, when the arguments have little substance. Both candidates are much better for the country than McCain whom ignorantly is supporting the Bush agenda.

Posted by: Jimbo | February 23, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I have a question to the Clinton and Obama supporters (especially Dems) who are claiming that, "if my candidate loses, I'm voting for McCain":

Fast forward to just after the Democratic convention. Your candidate, who lost the nom, has given a rousing speech at the convention, and is now criss-crossing the nation stumping for the nominee, asking you to support them in the general election.

Are you so blinded by your hatred of the winner that you stop listening to your preferred candidate altogether?

Posted by: JamesCH | February 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Will somebody at the Post please check for passports and Green Cards before these illegals are allowed to post on this blog!

Also, I disregard any post where the word favorite is spelled favourite.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Experience, so what? G. W. Bush had experience in governing one of the largest states. Look where that got us.

For the voter at the poll, it's all about who they feel most comfortable with. Specific position papers, campaign promises, etc. count for almost nothing.

After being sworn in, 95+% of being President is about who you choose to fill the critical positions in your administration. The other 5% is how well you make decisions. And, all Presidents make bad decisions on something sometime.

Americans vote with their gut, and roll the dice on how it's going to turn out. "Experience" is fine as a campaign slogan, but doesn't really count for much.

Posted by: In DC | February 23, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

When asked about differences between a Clinton Presidency and an Obama one, Barak shrewdly and effectively recited the Democratic Party line. Ironically , a Party Line Sen. Clinton had a larger influence shaping than Sen. Obama.
He did not look comfortable going first in any of the questioning.
A lot of time was also wasted by Sen. Clinton in her response, but the obvious big difference eventually came out; it is health care reform.
A Clinton Presidency will have universal health care an Obama Presidency will not!

Simple as that! The question is not so much details, the bottom line is whether you want universal health care or not. Clinton calculates in hers the resistance there will be against it and faces the question of mandate head on because anything less will fail.
Barak's plan was designed for a political campaign, it was always meant to be the less politically painful and never mind the odds of getting it done.
Only the blind could not see: This nomination decides the fate of health care.

Do you want to fight for it now with Clinton or wait until Obama changes the world?

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 23, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse


What happened the news of 900+ bits of (erroneous, but presented as fact) information supporting the need to strike Iraq? It is too big a story to be suppressed forever. Barak will have to explain opposition to striking Iraq in the face of all the "intelligence".

Barak is not inoculated against questions about inexperience and being called a naive liberal as Clinton may be.

Barak argued to deny a President the ability to strike a target we were told in a State of the Union Address was seeking nuclear ability and might already have dirty bomb material to give Osama Bin Laden.

Will we really elect a President who would do nothing when faced with similar situations (like Iran)? Would a President Obama sit on his hands in future times of national peril? OK, I will not hold lack of military service against him, but doesn't he have to know what a President's first duty is?

Mc Cain will work that question of judgment.

We could have had Al Gore instead of Bush if competency was not under-valued! Let s not make that mistake again. Imagine; Gore might have listened to his own administration s warnings about Bin Laden, at the very least we would have inspectors instead of war in Iraq and our full might in Afghanistan and/or where the terrorists hide! Instead America decided they liked Bush more and believed his I am a uniter rhetoric. Sound familiar? One unqualified President is enough!

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 23, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Prepare for the onslaught! I can here McCain now (with the media singing the chorus in the background), "Where were you on 911? What does that day mean to you?" Do you believe we are in a transcendental war on Islamic extremists? Are we going to pull out of the war on terrorism too?
Are you really prepared to use the full force of America's might (including the nuclear deterrent policy) to safeguard America? You hesitated then, who's to say you would not again. Pacifism will embolden or enemies and threaten our security. This is too easy, I could go on forever!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Just a quick point about the "intelligence" reports of WMD. Obama was likely not afraid of committing America to a necessary war, but listening to experts on Iraqi politics. I studied international politics at under and postgraduate level, and all of the security, strategic studies, military history, and Mid East experts agreed that Saddam could not have realistically still had WMD. The ones that Rumsfeld's firm sold him in the 80s degrade over a few years, and he was not in a position to buy more.
Add to that the UN weapons inspections in the 1990s, plus those led by Hans Blix, plus the total failure on every occasion for intelligence officers to locate any WMD, and you find that Obama made an informed opinion.
American troops have been stuck in Iraq for nearly 5 years, distracted from the important task of sorting out Afghanistan and capturing Bin Laden, and huge numbers of them have lost their lives, or been seriously injured bravely doing their duty.
As for Bush being inexperienced - how is that so? His father was President for 4 years, after 8 years as VP; he was Governor of Texas; his administration's top officials had held posts in previous administrations running back to Gerald Ford. If anything, they should have been able to get things right.
Obama is no less experienced at running a state or a business than Clinton or McCain. However, his managerial style is attracting some of the best people, and is winning him primaries and caucuses.
I cannot understand how any Clinton supporter would rather vote for 4 more years of failed foreign and economic policies, than Obama in an election. Nor would I understand it if Obama's supporters refused to vote for Clinton.
Look at Iraq, look at New Orleans, and look at all the people having their homes repossessed. Then tell me you want 4 more years of that.

Posted by: Olly | February 24, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

I find some of these comments very concerning.

We live in a democracy not a dictatorship. All the citizens of the United States of America have a right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

We are voting for the President of the United States not a King.

We have the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government so that there can be a balance of power in our government.

I like Ron Paul because he seems to have his ego in check and I agree with the ideas of smaller government, less taxes, and nonintervention foreign policy.

For 232 years the U.S.A. has had a male president. It's time for a REAL change.

My vote is for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is educated, intelligent, well-spoken, and experienced.

She's the only candidate who is concerned about "equal pay for equal work" and when all the rhetoric is forgotten some of us go back to the daily struggles of our lives. This is a paramount issue. With gas at $330. a gallon, milk at $3. a gallon, gas and electric at $400. per month, and the minimum wage at $7.15 an hour in New York State, we are not enticed by rhetoric, but practical concerns of our daily lives.

Posted by: Gloria | February 24, 2008 5:37 AM | Report abuse

Ok folks...can't you read?

I really believe that if the American people really knew who Senator Obama was connected to, they certainly wouldn't be voting for him!!

Here is a report from Bloomberg:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080215/pl_bloomberg/a9cjxfxamhn0;_ylt=AoOvqSMW3vw.gYikEW1BL6Wog9IF

I believe one of the most outstanding features of this story are:

"Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.

A Series of Bombings

The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s -- including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that ``I don't regret setting bombs.'' ..."Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said Ayers ``does not have a role on the campaign.'' Ayers said he had no comment on his relationship with Obama."

Posted by: Guest | February 24, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

To Guest:
Your article says...
"...While the Illinois senator has never been accused of wrongdoing, some of the associations he formed as a community organizer and politician in Chicago may provide fodder for attacks, Democratic and Republican political experts say...."

It may, but fodder is dung, and the general public is sick of the hypocracy.

Let's now in turn consider those with "associations" with the world's most powerful criminal elements; those that spawned Enron, WorldCom, and the Iraq war itself...

Posted by: Rebuttle to Guess | February 24, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Gary F. you say Hillary doesn't understand that we are already born with what we "need," and Obama is our satisfying our "want," which is for interaction. Basically, Hillary represents order and Obama represents hope. You addressed our wants and needs. Now, let's move on to what does this country need with regards to how the world views us? The importance of this election is that it provides and opportunity for us to have a "do-over," and wipe out the Bush years. That is what this country needs and it should be what we want. That is what Hillary represents. Obama represents a deeper dive into the abyss filled with inexperience and hot air, and our "hope" is that we can resurface again.

Posted by: Annette | February 24, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

guest wrote:
"For 232 years the U.S.A. has had a male president. It's time for a REAL change."

George Washington's first inaugural address took place on April 30, 1789. If you do the calculation, we will have had a male president for 219 years come April 30, 2008. If you are going to use numbers, please try for a minimum of accuracy. And by the way, for those same 219 years America will have had a white president too.

Posted by: spinotter | February 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It really sickens and saddens me that there are so many ignorant people in our country! Many of the posts on here are downright scary and ignorant. I am hoping that Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination because he is the Democrats best chance for a win in November. Barack Obama DOES have experience. He graduated from Harvard with his Law Degree. He served for 8 years in the State of Illinois as a state legislator. He was a Civil Rights attorney for many years where he fought for the rights of people. He has been a U.S. Senator for 4 years. But experience alone will not change our economy, or get us out of this mess in Iraq. Barack Obama will implement policies that will get our country of of this mess in Iraq, and that will improve our economy so we can once again have the highest standard of living in the world. How could a Democrat or independant possibly vote for Mcain? Mcain has said he is going to keep us in this war in Iraq for the next 100 years and he will stay the course in Iraq no matter what. Will we have a military draft then? Will our country go bankrupt as it already is because of the cost of the war in Iraq? Where will the money for health care, education, and to create jobs here in our own country come from if we are spending trillions of dollars on this war in Iraq? Mcain has the same economic policies and beliefs as Bush. Mcain will be no different then Bush in his policies. I encourage all of the voters in the Texas and Ohio primary's to vote for Barack Obama and let's get a Democratic victory in November!

Posted by: Dan1967 | February 24, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Why do I keep reading that Obama is a Muslim and does not salute the flag? Because some twisted operatives are planting that untrue information.

The man is a Christian. He is a constitutional scholar and a defender of democratic principals.

The Swiftboating has started early this season. The persons who started these malicious rumors should be exposed. We need to know who they are.

Posted by: Arlean Guerrero | February 24, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

First comment ever to a internet media post:you are all nuts!!if i thought for a second that any one of these candidates will change my life or how i live,i would vote for him or her! since the year of 2000 i pay twice the cost of fuel to heat my home and gas to get myself and spouse to work.the country is at its crossroads to very bad times.corprate america is not able to keep up with such large populations,the usa is not just north america anymore we are a global interprize. when one part of the world goes we all go.paying three dollars for a gallon of gas will not matter anymore.the matter of health insurance is bogus ,get rid of it.work at making health care inportant!!! the coasts of doctors and hospital is out of hand, even for the upper income familys.the cost for schooling good doctors should be overhauled.did anyone ever think about just not buying insurance,this would make the hospitals rethink their charging fees.i can see insurance for expencive stuff like your home,auto,etc.but health should have been left up to the people to decide.the war in Iraq will go on untill the middle east becomes united against the west.even if we pull all of our troops out of Iraq.afganestan,the rest of middle east the people of these countries want us dead.We buy their oil to make some of us rich.the rest of us pay at the pumps.as a country we could end our use of gas powered auto's quite fast if we wanted to.we already have the know how but keep letting our government lead us blindly down dooms day road.we all want change but change is coming like it or not.

Posted by: mike | February 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Thanks for Voting!

Posted by: votenic | March 3, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

What I can't believe is that the media and political pundits were unwitting participants in the Clinton's ruse to use the American people's thirst for justice to come to her defense. When people were hearing the pundits debate over when the DNC would ask her to bow out they voted against their intellectual wisdom and followed their gut. How dare the DNC make Hillary leave the race! This is not how democracy should work! We should help Hillary the "underdog" stay in the race!
Reality check America; you just fell for the # 1 play in the Clinton's "How to Win a Political Contest" playbook. They don't call them the "Comeback Kids" for nothing.
In fact, John McCain has also used that play and it worked for him too. Gee, maybe Sen Obama really is out of his league, but I don't blame him for not wanting to join.

Posted by: Kristi Wilson | March 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

So many of these post simply prove we need to spend more money on education.

1. It seems many individuals have no clue as to the proper way to research FACTS.

2. Dare I say it? SPELLING? Goodness.

3. Knowledge is power. The ability to find FACTS is a skill most of us learn in school. Sadly, many in these forums missed the boat.

4. What scares me the most is that uninformed and uneducated voters will have a major impact on our elections.


Number four scares me more than any of the candidates to date.

Posted by: Vance MCDaniel | March 12, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly!

Check Out Our New Polls Posted Weekly!

Posted by: votenic | March 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

We voted. In more contests, more of the popular vote and the electoral vote has gone to Obama. More new voters than ever before have stepped up and are voting Democratic--for Obama. Hillary represents the old guard and needs to move on.

http://www.cafepress.com/wetnoodle

Posted by: radiocboy | April 11, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

emxlv bigyvzed zwfduogi eqytibvgz kdapqh myfo oxkhd

Posted by: qcfosv wahykzmt | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

yjhgp pxcogwk qgbkhw iznaupsh otvu kyqg haesmyl http://www.ckpoqwh.pfxmb.com

Posted by: tcxqeya lfqsy | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: cheap ultram without | May 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

gfpyhu djhzu pxjckef yavi
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: elavil vulvodynia | August 15, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

exjapmd kjcyvl
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/lexapro-side-affects-loss-of-smell.html lexapro side affects loss of smell

Posted by: lexapro side affects loss of smell | August 15, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

exjapmd kjcyvl
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/lexapro-side-affects-loss-of-smell.html lexapro side affects loss of smell

Posted by: lexapro side affects loss of smell | August 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

zigehbt ymvfqc knjhay
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/effexor-withdrawal-sympotoms.html effexor withdrawal sympotoms

Posted by: effexor withdrawal sympotoms | August 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: seroquel adverse | August 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cause of hair loss in cats | August 17, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

vjfxug cyreuj
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/hair-illinois-loss-treatment.html hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: hair illinois loss treatment | August 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

fegusyn hjnxpd widlxc tceg
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-10mg-tablets.html lexapro 10mg tablets

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

fegusyn hjnxpd widlxc tceg
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-10mg-tablets.html lexapro 10mg tablets

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

syfkm bgynq
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/seroquel-side-effects-in-children.html seroquel side effects in children

Posted by: seroquel side effects in children | August 21, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

vywbps kbvgf yirj vmtxdqb
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effects-effexor-side.html effects effexor side

Posted by: effects effexor side | August 21, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

tniyz dnrksgi ebfy uagscf
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/taper-off-paxil.html taper off paxil

Posted by: taper off paxil | August 21, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company