About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Clinton Airing New Ads in Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin

Fresh from defeats in the Potomac Primaries, Hillary Clinton is now airing new ads in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas.

Clinton is airing her first attack ad against Barack Obama in Wisconsin. It lacks the black and white photos and ominous music of most attack ads. Insteads it lightly jabs the Illinois senator for ducking a debate invitation, and reminds Badger State voters of Clinton's health care proposals.

"Both Democratic candidates have been invited to a televised Wisconsin debate. Hillary Clinton has said yes. Barack Obama hasn't. Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions. Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures. Wisconsin deserves to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter. And that's not debatable."

"Falling Through" has aired in other states, but a new version is airing in the Buckeye State.

"Too many families are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis from falling through and losing everything," Clinton says. "I intend to be a president who stands up for all of you."

Clinton is also airing "Obligation" in Wisconsin and Texas, "Dignity," and "Lifetime" in Texas, and a Spanish-language ad called "Nuestra Amiga," also in the Lone Star State:

Reaching Latino voters in Texas -- an important voting bloc for both Clinton and Obama -- will be expensive. Candidato USA, a must-read for folks interested in political outreach to Latino voters, notes that:

"There are 19 media markets and being in all of those markets on English and Spanish-language media costs approximately $1.5 million a week. Four of Nielsen Media's top ten Hispanic television markets are located in the Lone Star State. South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley are the most heavily Latino areas in the state. Brownsville, Corpus Christi and Laredo each have a population that is more than 80 percent Latino. But the biggest Latino populations are in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio."

(For his part, Obama is airing a 60-second bilingual radio ad designed to introduce him to Latino voters unfamiliar with his life story.)

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  February 12, 2008; 1:51 PM ET Ad Watch , Barack Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Clinton's 'Obligation,' Obama's 'Mother' | Next: More Ads From Clinton, Obama

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



As a UW Madison graduate, it was uplifting to see that great speech by Obama at the Kohl Center. Hillary Clinton's petty negative debate ad provides nothing to help understand why she is better able to solving Americans problems. Obama has agreed to a debate on February 21 so he is obviously not ducking debates.
Negative campaigning is what she describes as the "fun part" of the electoral process. Maybe that is why she as gone to from presumptive nominee to playing catch up. Am I the only one that sees hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for not debating while choosing to not run a full scale campaign in Wisconsin? Shame on her.

Posted by: scarr1 | February 13, 2008 2:21 PM

She's so right and it will do so little good.

Americans don't want to think. They want to be swept up in emotion.

Obama is a drug.

Americans can't get enough of him.

Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 2:31 PM

Clearly Hillary wants to debate in Wisconsin prior to the primary because it amounts to free airtime that she can ill afford to invest in a state she is unlikely to win. The debate would have allowed her to pull her advertising from Wisconsin and focus all of her financial resources on Ohio and Texas.

Posted by: EM | February 13, 2008 2:41 PM

Hillary's ideas are uplifting for those among us who consider ourselves "issues voters"

She's got the best health care and economic policies.

She'd be the best President, especially in difficult or complicated situations.

I'd like to urge all Obama supporters to look at the policy sections of both candidates web sites.

If they do, they'll vote for Hillary.

Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 2:50 PM

I agree with above poster; if you are voting on the issues, you are voting for Hillary Clinton. I am tired of these playground personality politics. To the first poster, are you that influenced by the media. Are you actually quoting the "fun part" exactly the way Mr. Obama interprets it. Look at the interview, she just means that things are going to be a challenge here on out. I am tired of Obama supporters buying into his divisive politics against Mrs. Clinton, constantly painting her as an antagonist to the nomination and feeding it to his mean-spirited supporters. His supporters, based on their harsh criticisms of Mrs. Clinton are a testament to voter hypcrosisy. You want hope. You want change. And what? You want to burn down the woman you think is standing in the way. Do you actually think this person, who has fought for some very impressive policies in the USA, is that bad? To answer yes is a testament to your own character and precociousness to the media.

Posted by: Sarah | February 13, 2008 3:01 PM

you are all crazy for not vote clinton,,,you are in a big surprise,,,obama will make you all weep.. he will call you all w tras

Posted by: dollsuged@aol.com | February 13, 2008 3:16 PM

I agree that Hillary has very uplifting policies. I agree that she is talented, competent and strong. I am a woman and never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would not vote for the first woman candidate for President. However, nowhere in all her speeches, or interviews, have I heard what I'm looking for: What specifically will she do to heal this nation, to reach out to the other side and to make amends with Republicans so that we can move forward. And hence, I'm an independent voter, and this time, I rather "roll the dice" with Obama!

Posted by: Vivian | February 13, 2008 3:18 PM

Poor Hillary. When ahead in her New York senatorial campaigns against light weights Rick Lazio in '00 and Yonkers mayor John Spenser in '04, she avoided debates like the plague. Now that she has fallen behind and is short on cash she wants one debate per week. Obama has agreed to two more before March 4 and already has participated in 17 debates.

While the ad is clever, if that is all she has to say at this point, it probably will make little difference.

Posted by: NYer | February 13, 2008 3:27 PM

Will Obama please tell us what he really stands for on anything other than HOPE? He was light on attendance in Illinois and similarly in D.C. If you aren't there you can't vote and then you have no record of where you stand on the issues on which the voters can truly judge you. He needs more seasoning and to show up to whatever position he is elected. W. Bush rarely works. Do we need another half time President?

Posted by: JEB | February 13, 2008 3:43 PM

Its funny watching the Clintons come up with a campaign theme. While Obama lifts you with an inspriational message of hope and "fired up, ready to go!", all Clinton has to offer is "calm down, don't get so fired up...".

Her whole line about being the 'experience candidate'- since when does being a first lady count?! I guess she's counting that failed health care initiative- someone should remind her how that went. She's got a few more years in the Senate on him- that's it.

Her other line is that she's been attacked by Rep's her whole career and Obama hasn't. So her logic is "they really hate me and have TONS of bad things to say about me, but I can weather it if you can stomach it." Since when is being attacked a virtue? Frankly I don't think the Clinton's have handled all those attacks in the 90s with much grace. After her health care debaucle, Hillary did a strategic withdrawl and was never again entrusted with policy during the remainder of Bill's terms.

If Hillary ends up with more pledged delegates at the end of this, then fine she beat him fair and square. But if she tries some BS move by seating FL and MI delegates and declaring victory, when Obama played by the agreed upon rules not to campaign there and took his name off the ballot in MI.... well that's stealing the election hands down. That's a murder/suicide move by her as thousands of Dems like myself will NOT award that behavoir- we'll vote for McCain first.

The 90's were great, but that was the past. Obama is the future.

Posted by: Buddha | February 13, 2008 3:45 PM

svreader...
How does Hillary plan to enforce her mandate that everyone buy health insurance? Will people be signed up automatically and premiums deducted from their paychecks? I couldn't find that information on her website.

Posted by: joy2 | February 13, 2008 3:46 PM

I have read the issues of both. And there truly isn't much difference. So when you are voting for two people with the same policies the only choice you have is to vote for the person who can actually accomplish them. I haven't heard Hillary discuss anything of significance that she has passed into law. I give her credit for trying, and yes she means well. But if you are hated by the Republicans and tolerated by the Democrats, there isn't much you can get done. Hillary will make a wonderful adviser to Obama.

Posted by: John | February 13, 2008 3:52 PM

Hillary has an Impressive Policy? Uplifting?
I see many have conceded that Hillary is actually better in policy. The way I see it, both have quite specifics and it is all clear to me where they stand on many positions. Their difference is on the way they approach their campaign message. OBH is a skillful communicator and inspiration of a can do attitude, where as she is not.

I would challenge any issue voters to go deep to their actual policies and find any significant difference between them.

I am not sold on Hillary's "Mandatory" Universal health, that is just not going to happen because we are fundamentally a democratic country and no one will force anyone to do anything. I am all for opportunities to have one at an acceptable price.

The war in Iraq is virtually the same for both candidates, but OBH is in a better position since he opposed it from the beginning.

NAFTA, we all know her husband created, even though she opposes it now, for all the "remember the nineties feeling", NAFTA is responsible for many job losses in places like Ohio.
Tax policy, they are virtually similar.

The 35 years experience is overly inflated.
7 yrs+ walmart + 8 yrs first lady + 8 yrs senate is the chunk of the experience she is taking about. In fact Obama have passed more legislations in the time he got to Washington than she did in 5 years. He was legislating even longer time in the state senate.

The question that should also be raised is, who is the best candidate that can unite congress and the house enough to build a majority that will pass their issues on the table. And I doubt this will happen under Clinton's watch.

Consequently
Since when is a "message of hope" a non issue for Issue Voters. Even you thing you have substance, if nobody is listening and it becomes a non issue.

I really do not hate Hillary, I think she will do better than bush on most issues. Even if I am a democrat I like some of his social values and stick to principle attitude. But to suggest that she will bring about change(implement her substance) with the same kind of Washington business as usual attitude is just a lost case.

Posted by: shawel | February 13, 2008 3:55 PM

John, don't you mean that Hillary's advisors would make good advisors for Obama?

Posted by: DG | February 13, 2008 3:59 PM

On the night of the D.C. primary, there was an important senate vote. Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama attended and voted, even though the latter had to rush off to Wisconsin to appear in Madison. Sen. Hillary Clinton never even bothered to show up to do her duty as a US Senator.

Posted by: Gerry | February 13, 2008 4:00 PM

Hilary:

1) Proven over the years: Putting her political future at risk fighting health care corps back in 1992. She could just sit back like Laura Bush, all all 1st ladies before her. Same said with Arkansas's educational reform.

2) Has clear steps to fix the country. Health care fix for example.

3) Straight forward: no sugar coating of herself. Dare to compare herself to Obama using facts.

Obama:

1) No track records, not even on his website. Made big promises.

3) No specific plan. Had not thought about immigration issue as years of senator, under stumbled on debate. ANY senator has to think about immig. Now claimed better than Hilary on immigration.

3) Has his minions attacked Hilary as evil, meantime praising him as uniter.

I see a opportunist trying to steal the country's future. America does not care about facts anymore, just looks, perceived personality, promises, crowd mentality. No wonder it is moving backward.

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 4:02 PM

Good post shawel.
Another important difference I see is Obama's fresh approach to foreign policy. For example: talking to our enemies, as well as our friends. Hillary called that naive at first, now she's backtracked a bit. Talking to our enemies is not a sign of weakness or naivete' -- JFK did it. Reagan did it. GW Bush IS afraid to and look what a mess we're in.

Posted by: JOY2 | February 13, 2008 4:05 PM

CoRes If that is Hillary's Experience advantage over Obama, I feel good for him already. I thought her proponents would make a better case than that.

Posted by: shawel | February 13, 2008 4:08 PM

After 18 debates Hillary has not explained how she will enforce the mandates in her plan for universal healthcare.

Does anyone really think conservatives will agree to garnish wages or tax penalties? I seriously doubt it.

Hillary's plan will be labeled "socialized medicine" and we will find ourselves fighting the same old battles of the 90's.

What we need is a pragmatic approach to solving the problem of health care.

The problems facing our country are too serious...We need to turn the page on the divisive politics of the past and move forward.

It would be a mistake to not to recognize the urgency of now...What we need is Barack Obama's pragmatic form of progressive politics.

Posted by: REB | February 13, 2008 4:08 PM

didn't we already elect a uniter not a divider once? sometimes once is enough. I can't support Barack W. Obama

Posted by: a DemW ? | February 13, 2008 4:08 PM

Obama bought a house lower than fair price. Owner said deal only closed if Obama's friend also bought land next to house. Friend then sold part of the land to Obama at cost.

At the end: Obama gets a discount on house. Friend left with part of land he did not need.

I smell BIG POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT he accuses Hilary of.

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 4:09 PM

WHY JOHN EDWARDS BELIEVERS SHOULD SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA:

Can We Still Build One America? Yes We Can
ï‚·
(Note: I was the former Director of Online Engagement for John Edwards for President. The following reflects only the personal views of the author, and in no way represents the views of John Edwards, his campaign, nor anyone else currently or formerly affiliated with his campaign.)
The first time I spoke to John Edwards about joining his campaign, I mentioned the Wellstone quote that's in my email signature, 'Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives.' His voice brightened considerably. "That, right there," he said, "is the point of this campaign." I believed him. I gave up everything and moved to Chapel Hill. And that remained the point of our campaign for One America through the very end.
Now I, like many Edwards people, face a choice we never wanted, but we cannot ignore. We must decide after John, which remaining candidate is the best bet to finish what we started -- making real improvements in the lives of the people who really need it?
After many conversations, comparisons, and soul searching, my personal answer, and my advice to other Edwards believers wrestling with the same question, is Barack Obama. Here's why:
The Issue
Throughout the campaign, John Edwards talked about ending poverty in America as the moral challenge of our generation. For me, this was always at the heart of our effort to build One America. And no issue better represents our fierce commitment to look out for one another, not because it's politically popular, but because it's just the right thing to do.
So which candidate would be most likely to fulfill the dream of ending poverty in our time? It can't be about simple agreement. Surely, both candidates would flip a switch to end poverty right now, if they could. No, it's about priority. Changes this big require leaders to put it all on the line and inspire a nation to stand up and join them. So the real question is: Who is more willing to put this cause front and center, and who is more able to get the job done?
I'm a web guy. So I went to the campaign websites to see what they had to say. Here's what I found:
The Commitment
Obama lists "poverty" on his main issues list, which is accessible from any page on his site. It links to a dedicated page that names the problem of 37 million Americans still trapped in poverty, and offers a 15 point anti-poverty agenda to solve it.
Obama's proposals run the gamut from familiar progressive pillars like indexing the minimum wage to inflation, all the way to innovative new projects like replicating the highly successful "Harlem Children's Zone" in 20 high risk neighborhoods across the country.
His agenda includes plans for creating entry level jobs, reducing recidivism, anti-poverty tax reforms, pre-natal care for at risk populations, urban community development funds and significant rural investment.
Hillary, unfortunately, does not list poverty (or any equivalent) amongst her major issues. Nor, as far as I can tell, does the word "poverty" appear on any of her policy pages. I don't doubt for a moment that Hillary genuinely cares about poor people. But how can you lead a nation to combat a problem you don't even mention?
Because there is no "poverty" issue page, an apples-to-apples comparison of their agenda is tough. Hillary's "Strengthening the Middle Class" page, presumably the closest thing, has nine proposals. But if you take out items that either affect poverty only incidentally (like "Returning to fiscal responsibility") or explicitly aren't about the poor, (like "Lowering taxes for middle class families") you're left with only five points. And that's counting three proposals, ("Hillary's Innovation Agenda," a "Strategic Energy Fund" and "Confronting growing problems in the housing market") which might very well help reduce poverty, but they don't mention how, or seem explicitly designed to even try.
I'm not a policy expert, and I'm not qualified to parse the details. But I do think there's a clear difference in priority here. And while the details of plans will invariably change, core commitments will not. Obama comes out ahead.
The Record
Another way to tell what a candidate will prioritize in the future is what they've chosen to prioritize in the past. As a voter I can't know either candidate personally or fact-check the mountains of he-said-she said on every side. So once again, I went to the websites to let the candidates speak for themselves.
Obama's poverty page references his work in the Illinois legislature expanding tax credits for the poor and fighting for affordable housing. Hillary's site makes no coherent case for her record on poverty, but does frequently reference her accomplishments on some important relevant issues, such as children's health care.
It's perhaps even more instructive to look back at the choices they made before they knew anyone was looking, and how they talk about those choices now.
Obama's "Meet Barack" page describes his first job as a Chicago community organizer as a choice to "improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment." It goes so far as to say Obama chose a career in politics specifically as a long term strategy to "truly improve the lives of people in that [poor] community and other communities." In the list of overall issues he works on now, the very first is: "the poverty exposed by Katrina". Not bad.
"Hillary's Story" also shows admirable commitment. It describes how she ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first arrived in Arkansas, and that Carter appointed her to the board of "the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor."
The distinction here is somewhat subjective. To my mind, Obama's career choice was likely more deeply formative, more comprehensive as an anti-poverty strategy and more noteworthy in its lack of connection to routes towards traditional success. But honestly, they both deserve real credit, and the fact that both major contenders for the nomination began their careers in these ways makes me proud to be a Democrat. Onward.
The Movement
If the candidate's commitment and record tell us who is most willing, how can we evaluate who is most able? From where I sit, both Hillary and Obama appear to be both highly intelligent, competent people. But as John Edwards so often reminded us, no president can end poverty on their own. Transformational change of that magnitude requires an equally large movement of people fighting to make it happen. So who is building that movement?
Again, I'm a web guy. If you look at the numbers, they both have passionate grassroots support, but the difference is clear. Obama supporters have created 9x more local groups, 10x more national groups, and 15x more personal blogs. Obama's web traffic, donors, and online to offline volunteers smash all records. And I can tell you, there's no technology or trick to generate that kind of energy -- it just has to be real.
But this goes beyond the numbers, and yes, far beyond the web. After all, Barack Obama isn't John Edwards, and I can't know if he'll actually put ending poverty at the top of his agenda. But by inspiring millions of people to believe in their own power to create change, I do know his campaign is laying the groundwork for those of us who will.
The Future
We always thought of winning the presidency as merely the first step in a generational effort to build One America -- and so it remains. We must keep speaking out, organizing, and fighting at every opportunity -- in every town hall, statehouse, Congressional house and the Whitehouse until poverty is history and the dream of One America dream becomes reality.
And right now, I believe we have to pick our best hope for a president who will be a partner in that effort. If Hillary is nominated she will deserve our vigorous support. But because of his commitment, his record, and his unique ability to swell our ranks with people fired up and ready to begin the struggle of a lifetime, I believe Barack Obama is that best hope.
So, can we still build One America? Yes. Yes we can.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 4:16 PM

At this point Clinton has nothing to lose, its a high risk strategy. If it goes well she has a chance. If it doesn't, it won't matter much anyway. Clinton has done very well in the debates and it's free air time. It's a good strategy.

I am a Obama supporter and admits he is weaker in the debates. For the most part, they both have the same position on policies, Clinton tends to go into more detail and Obama stays at the 10,000 ft level. I think both approaches are calculated strategies, but you can debate the effectiveness of each all day. If I were Obama I'd avoid debates, if I were Clinton I'd want them.

Personally, I don't think voters can get anymore information out of these debates than what the candidates already have out there. I guess I've been following the campaigns to long, they both sound like broken records at this point.

Posted by: Danny | February 13, 2008 4:20 PM

Simply Put, I don't see anything that OBH can't do that she can do better so far in the election.

Especially when he is running a campaign with highly driven, enthusiastic and well informed volunteers. His organizing ability is amazing.

She changed her message from Experience, briefly to change after Iowa, then transformed to an attack dog, then back to experience with change undertone. Fired to high campaign officials already. Now Back to quasi-attack mode. If that is her style of presidency watch out?

Remember the reality check was her Idea too. Now it is part of one of the many inspiring Obhama speech.

Posted by: shawel | February 13, 2008 4:21 PM

The candidates are not running in a popularity contest. They are not running for Prom King/Queen, and they are not competing in American Idol. They are running for President of the United States.

When I think of who I want to be President, I think of someone who is never, never out, even when things appear to be in chaos around them. I think of someone who has been tested and torn into and criticized from all sides, and still manages to stand tall, with a brave face, and perform and work and never let anyone get them down. Who still speaks about solutions and real issues, because even though the public is jumping on a bandwagon of fanaticism, that leader knows that someone has got to keep talking about the tough job of governing a country.

It is easy to ride high when all that ever gets said about you is good. One of the Democratic candidates in this race has been treated like a rock star. The other one has been treated like a President. I prefer the one who has been treated like a President - tested and questioned and srutinized at every turn - and who still stands tall and acts like a President. I am not interested in rock stars running my country.

I feel for you folks who aren't voting for Hillary Clinton. You must be confusing the Presdential race with a season of American Idol.

Posted by: Sarah | February 13, 2008 4:22 PM

Hillary Clinton is a divisive figure and not just among Republicans. Frankly, there's a reason the media hates her. It's because they really know who she is. They cover her. They interview her and the people she has interacted with. It's well-known that she threatened Jim Cooper of Tenn. -- a House Democrat who tried to introduce an alternative and likely more palatable health care plan in the '90s. Her reaction to him: "We'll crush you. You'll wish you never mentioned this to me." That's not the sign of a deft politician who will be able to work with others to get things done. It's a sign of someone who believes she can intimidate and manipulate to get things to go her way. It's how they've run this entire campaign. And it's why she will lose.

Posted by: tiznow | February 13, 2008 4:25 PM

Well said shawel. American Idol is deemed more important these days. I wonder if Brad Pitt could have out-fashioned, out promised Hilary as well. He looks presidential does he not?

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 4:26 PM

I am delighted as a Democrat with two excellent candidates in Senators Clinton and Obama.

Contrary to many readers, I want to see a harder and tougher primary campaign. Neither candidate has been sufficiently tested and toughened by some edgy attacks and hard hitting campaigning. This means whoever is the winner has not been sufficiently vetted on the characteristics that, lets face it, win elections.

My deepest reservation about Senator Obama is that his lofty speechs and high rhetoric will soon meet Mr. Rove, and company who are not at all committed to hope and civility. I fear another "swift boating" debacle with Senator Obama. With Senator Clinton I am confident of deft counterpunching and a demonstrated ability to withstand blistering attacks.

As a democrat tired of losing, I want to win, and I want a candidate willing to do all that is necessary to do so. Win ugly, win pretty, I dont care, just win.

Posted by: Tim | February 13, 2008 4:29 PM

Something appears to be really wrong with Hillary's supporters. With arrogance, they pronounce all the millions of Americans who have voted for Obama as idiots who stand for a candidate with nothing to offer. Is that true? No. The exit polls show that Obama is favoured by college educated, affluent voters. Clinton is by and large favoured by voters who on average are not college educated. Doesn't that make nonsens and stupid of the Clinton team and its supporters when they pontificate and assert that Obama stands for nothing? The Clinton message is NOT resonating. The politics of fear and class and race has been displayed by the politics of hope, unity and one United States. The US Constitution is a "bunch of words" the Clinton team will say. But we all know that it is greater than than all the magnificent buildings in the USA.

Clinton is losing because hers is an incompetent campaign; she is losing because she thought that the "love" for her husband (a love created by the media) was universal among Democrats; she is losing because Americans have seen what is behind the veil and don't like what they see. She is very uninspiring. She should do the honorable - suspend her campaign for President of these United States.

Posted by: okoronkwookoko | February 13, 2008 4:32 PM

Does it surprise anyone in the slightest that Hillary has reverted to negative attack ads in her desperation to salvage Texas and Ohio in order to keep her chance of "stealing" the nomination (through Super Delegates and/or seating delegates from Michigan and Florida based on primaries that voters (like myself - from Florida) were told in unequivocal terms would not count toward delegates at the convention.

This confirms everything I've been hearing for the past few days concerning the Clinton strategy for the big states coming up. The word has been out that Hillary (and Bill) had adopted a strategy that would target primarily Hispanic voters, older white voters, voters from rural areas, blue collar workers, and voters with lower incomes and lower levels of education. The supposed idea behind this Clinton strategy was that these are the voters who are less likely to be informed about the issues and the background of the two candidates; making them the easier groups to target with their campaign of lies and disinformation; offering to "buy" their votes with worthless campaign promises, if necessary. The rest of what I heard was less definite, but the thought was that the Clintons would probably go negative in their campaign ads in their effort to distort and smear Senator Obama. It looks like the reports got it right again, and it didn't take very long for the Clintons to get the ball rolling.

I can't wait until the voters in Texas and Ohio show the Clintons that they are not the uneducated and uninformed fools that the Clintons take them to be, especially those demographic groups who are being specifically singled out by Bill and Hillary as "easy targets". I hope the exit polling proves just how wrong the Clinton campaing was again.

I would think that the voters in Wisconsin have had more than ample opportunity to tune into one of the 20 or so debates that have been held so far if they really wanted to see the candidates debate. Virtually everyone who understands how campaigns work understand that it is usually the candidate who is in trouble and feels panic and desperation setting in who begs for more opportunities to debate their opponent. Conventional wisdom dictates that the candidate who is losing the lection has nothing else to lose by debating their opponent. I believe that the biggest reason Senator Obama is not teribly interested in debating Senator Clinton is his recognition that Hillary wants to benefit from the free publicity that goes along with debates, and she wants to have some control over where Senator Obama is able to spend his time and what he is able to say to the American people.Give Credit to Senator Obama for not falling into Hillary's desperate trap.

Just a word, in closing, about the charge in Hillary's attack ad, claiming that she "has the only Health Care plan that covers every American". I'm not entirely sure her plan could do exactly what she claims; and more importantly I strongly doubt her ability to get her plan approved by Congress if she was to be elected. The point that Hillary conveniently fails to mention about her plan is that she would make sure her plan covers "every American" by forcing her plan down people throat and garnishing their wages if necessary to make them sign onto her plan whether they felt that it was affordable for them or not!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 4:37 PM

Hillary Clinton voted for a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. She will step on any people and on any civil rights that appear politically convenient at the moment.

Good thing that Obama beat her for the nomination. She's lost 8 straight contests in landslides. Barack Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | February 13, 2008 4:38 PM

A couple of descriptive terms that the press uses for many Obama supporters are high-income and educated.

My point...we do read and we have enough book and common sense to digest the facts.

Go Obama!

Posted by: ELuv | February 13, 2008 4:38 PM

Hey Tim, you sound like someone who gets it! The real winner will be the one who proves they are the toughest one under pressure. The real winner will be the one who can put the pressure on others as a way of demonstrating who is really prepared to lead.

Hillary Clinton: a real winner.

Posted by: Frank | February 13, 2008 4:38 PM

I don't know How you can win a general election where according to her all the states she losses don't matter and they are many of them.
Caucuses don't matter, Red States don't matter, states with large African-American vote dont matter. Apparently it is Texas that matters now. Not even a swing state by any imagination.

Posted by: shawel | February 13, 2008 4:40 PM

By over spending Clinton ended up needing to loan her campaign money to continue. Then replacing her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager mid stream. How can anyone say she is ready to lead the country when she can't even manage her own campaign?

Posted by: jwg8r | February 13, 2008 4:44 PM

Move forward America!

The old "partisan/lobbiest-cash/negative ad" style of clinton is being totally repudiated by the voters!

Read Obama's policies posted on his web site...

Think about ripping out the party political machine in Washington...

And GO VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: JBE | February 13, 2008 4:45 PM

Hey Ok and ELuv - you elitist just don't get it, do you? I am a union member and a low-wage worker, and I KNOW that low income folks - like the ones you were looking down at in Ohio - are not fools in any way! And we are the ones who have been voting for Hillary.

You two think you understand the issues better because you read the New Yorker and have a million degrees? Or play around on your Macs all day? It's the working folks who get it. We are the ones that know that heart and soul and insight comes from struggle. We want straight talk, not a bunch of slick marketing and "Change Express". We sure don't want to be called Obama-kins. Talk about patronizing. We won't stand for anything less than the real deal.

We love Hillary.

Posted by: Sarah | February 13, 2008 4:53 PM

Hillary Clinton is the CORPORATE CANDIDATE

America needs to wake up and vote for democracy. Now Obama is not without corporate support, but he will have the fresh perspective and the moral superiority to break off

Clintons have been in this "thing" for too long

Go OBAMA

Posted by: RN | February 13, 2008 4:59 PM

Hummm, you'll have to pardon this naive Obama supporter, but didn't FDR campaign on the exceedingly vague idea of a "New Deal" for the American people? I seem to recall that once he was elected he had a rather substantial impact on American society. Face it, if you can't inspire people, you won't get elected and your policies won't go anywhere, no matter how lovingly crafted and minutely specific they are.

Moreover, before voting I checked out both web sites, watched the debates and came to the conclusion that they are really pretty darn close on most of the issues, though neither is overly specific, in my humble opinion.

For this reason, two months ago, I would have happily voted for a Hillary-headed ticket in November.

At this point, however, I am getting a serious case of Clinton fatigue. Between Bill's "fairy-tales" in NH, the racial antics in South Carolina, Hillary's late and cynical conversion to Floridian enfranchisement, and the latest debate nonsense (good lord, how can anyone claim that 19 times is insufficient!), this life-long Democrat is beginning to think that McCain deserves a closer look in November.

Posted by: FedUp | February 13, 2008 5:02 PM

svreaders---

So, you think people who vote for Obama don't care about issues? Actually that is the reason I support him.

1) He is anti-war.

2) Anti-cluster bomb.

3) Anti-torture.

These are important "issues" for me. I am not sure what "issues" draw you towards Clinton. Is all she provides are long lists of promises and people mistake this for depth.

Posted by: Brendan | February 13, 2008 5:29 PM

Obama's proposals on the different issues are as detailed and substantive as Hillary's. The difference is that he doesn't choose to elaborate on every single detail every time he gives a stump speech (which is deliberate decision). If Hillary is elected as the President, she will not be able to get her proposals passed in Congress because she will polarize the country and unify the Republicans against her. I believe that Obama has the best chance of actually getting some of his proposals passed through congress because of this positive, inspiring, and unifying leadership. Leadership is just not about setting a good plan; it is also about bringing people and politicians together to actually implement and achieve those plans.

Obama has the best chance of transcending party divisions and actually getting legislation through Congress that can address the major issues that Americans are facing today.

Posted by: Jason | February 13, 2008 5:42 PM

Obama is a Washington insider and spend 4 yaers as a Senator. Why does not he blame himself for doing nothing within this 4 yaers. Why did not he change or try to do so? He is a part of Washington as much as Hillary and McCain. But the last two are honest. Obama was plaing a safe politics within this 4 years. We are about to get another Bush. Please figth against it. Obama is a Washington insider and spend 4 years as a Senator. Why does not he blame himself for doing nothing within these 4 years? Why did not he change or try to change Washington? The truth is that he is a part of Washington as much as Hillary and McCain. But the last two at least are honest. Obama was playing a safe politics within these 4 years. We are about to get another Bush. Please fight to prevent it. I am a Democrat and if Obama is nominated, I will vote for McCain.

Posted by: Jana | February 13, 2008 5:45 PM

I think the best comparison to Obama is FDR. Roosevelt was a political genius and had the brains to hire better brains to manage policy. In a multitude of ways, he tailored his policies to that which was politically achievable rather than simply pushing what might be ideal. {Drove Eleanor batty!!} He understood that the most important part of his job, was to create the political environment in which his agenda could succeed. Obama explicitly seems to understand that. [I can give you a dozen concrete "policy-wonk" examples he HAS discussed and said "nice if we could" - including single-payer health care] Hillary seems not to understand.

Like FDR, Obama knows how to speak to the American people. That is just one more indication that he is extremely politically talented, something the Democrats need desperately and used to have in abundance until the policy wonks took over the democratic party (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.) The job of president is not policy-bureaucrat-in-chief, it is politician-in-chief, something the Democrats forgot after about 1972 and the reason why they have had so much difficulty winning presidential elections. Bill Clinton was almost an accident they fell into - He is/was a wonk, but also very politically talented. Obama is yet more politically talented --- if you read his website and listen to speeches directed to wonk-groups, you'll discover he is also wonkish---but he doesnt let it dominate his presentations.

As for managerial competence, Obama has certainly managed probably the most successful campaign against exceedingly high odds in the last century. For all her oft-touted experience, what has HRClinton ever actually primarily managed? Health-care reform in 1993-94? Certainly, most recently Clinton has done very badly managing her own campaign, both strategically and tactically. If you look at her choices to head (now being fired) that campaign, you'll note they have had problems with secrecy and competence for years and have been kept for loyalty's sake. Sound like some other president you know and love?

FDR was also an excellent judge of human character and their talents, motives and abilities. Here, HRC is a near-world-class disaster. Too soon to tell about Obama, but at least the jury is still out..

You tell me re HRC and personnel judgements:

Is she exceptionally sleazy? --- or can't judge the problems with dozens of large campaign donors? And it's NOT Whitewater. These will be standard attack positions that are NOT Swiftboating in that they have a most-real and demonstrable basis. You talk about risks in the general campaign?? This aint a risk, IT'S a certainty - and it dont include Monica, Jennifer, and 20 other bimbo's of what Hillary has now openly made a Billary presidency.

Did she really not discern what Bush/Rove were doing in Iraq 1992-1995?? Or really supported the Iraq invasion for years until the public as a whole turned against it? Or what? Did she not learn anything re her Iran vote? No explanation has/can/ or will really clarify the basic problems with judgements..

Any answer to any of the above creates a serious problem for HRC that hard-core Democrats may ignore (just as hard-core Repubs ignore all sorts of Bush Iraq and economy problems) - --Independents wont ignore them. Neither repubs nor Obama have really targeted many of these problems in the primaries. It's a convenient myth that Hillary has been vetted and her negatives (47%) have reached their max.

Posted by: gdb | February 13, 2008 5:48 PM

Barack Obama doesn't want to debate Hillary because debates are his weakness and that's where she does best. Obama is only good at offering soundbites and giving prepared speeches. He's not knowledgeable enough to do otherwise and it shows in every debate.

No sir...contrary to popular belief, Barack Obama is no rock star. He's more like a 'flavor of the month' American Idol contestant (not winner). With a little studio production he can find a hit among the tone deaf, but he can't improvise or perform well live.

When it comes to debates Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a legend! I hope the Clintons go even more negative and expose Obama for the fraud that he is. He's nothing more than a snake oil salesman a fact America will learn if Hillary (or somebody...anybody) doesn't STOP OBAMA!

NObama '08!

Vote Hillary!

Posted by: Machiavelli | February 13, 2008 5:48 PM

Dear svreaader,
Perhaps we can't get enough of him because there is so much of him to get. Check the issues, the judgment calls and the capable campaign. Is that what you call a drug?

There's a lot to get from him and we are getting it!

Posted by: Suzette | February 13, 2008 5:55 PM

Sarah,
It was Hillary who said, "Now the fun begins" when the attacks started. I was shocked by her comment and it was the beginning of me withdrawing my support from someone with that vindictive attitude.

It was not a great way to present herself so early in the race. The media react to her comments; they don't make this stuff up. She keeps giving them the ammunition. She has not figured out yet how to take the high road and I for one am looking for a candidate who takes the high road.

I will vote for McCain before her, because at least he is a gentleman.

Posted by: Susan | February 13, 2008 6:03 PM

Jeb,
In the Illinois State Senate, he worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.

Posted by: Susan | February 13, 2008 6:12 PM

SV READER and other Clinton supporters seem to believe that she can walk on water. For those supporters that thought the Clinton years were so wonderful, lets review:

1993 - Clinton would not send necessary armament and tanks to Somalia to get the warlord in charge. We wind up with Black Hawk down and we left with our tails between our legs not to mention the embarassment of this issue.

1998 - Ah Monica, while Bill was dodging lamps thrown at him by Hillary, after having his encounters with Monica, he fired off some missiles hoping to hit Osama Bin Laden since Hillary found that the great "Right Wing Conspiracy" did not encourage Monica to wear a thong in the White House.

2000 - Lets not forget how he handled the USS Cole incident.

For someone who never served in the military no other president has committed troops to war like Bill Clinton

Quite frankly with the Clintons, we have been there, done that and got a t-shirt.

Thanks, but no thanks to any more Clinton White Houses. I heard that the White House staff had to sanitize the Oval Office. I guess it takes a Bush to clean up after a Clinton.

Hillary will say or do anything to get elected and then begin payback to the Republicans.

I think Sen. Obama and McCain have rightly decided that this country needs to be united, not divided.

Posted by: Jack | February 13, 2008 6:21 PM

Frank,
Who is the real leader here?

Clinton had it in the bag a year ago with name recognition, a huge support base and a huge treasure chest. Since then her lead has slowly eroded away. She tags along after him in language (e.g., Change, Hope).

The more folks have exposure to him, his votes increase; the more people are exposed to her, her votes decrease.

He has totally lead this election on the offensive and she is always on the defensive. Voters are following him. She is following him. Who is the real leader here?

The way she is running (losing) her campaign and now squandered dollars, is the true indication of how she would run (lose) the country. We are seeing how Obama has come from nowhere, with nothing, to inspire and uplift this country. Who is the real leader here?

Posted by: Madge | February 13, 2008 6:48 PM

A short comment from France about Obama's "momentum".

Dear friends, we too had our local candidate similar to Obama, her name is Ségolène Royal. She was very popular among the young militants, the internet surfers, NGOs and other "artists". All polls showed her winning over the main opponents.

But nobody wanted to notice that she was just full of wind: no decent program, zero ideas, zero capacities. When the real deabates occure, when the real people started to think about the real issues she.. collapsed.

That exactly what will happen to Obama. Because this nice guy is not a real man, he is a soundless image. A sneeze of the media.


Posted by: Pierre Le Loup | February 13, 2008 6:58 PM

"She's so right and it will do so little good.

Americans don't want to think. They want to be swept up in emotion.

Obama is a drug.

Americans can't get enough of him."
Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 02:31 PM

O svreader, how quickly we forget that there has been nineteen debates already. What Hillary wants is free airtime; heck no. Let HRC pay the money (heck, she has raised $13M in February, plus she can spring for more from own till, regardless of its dubious sources). Let Hillary do her own commercials and spend her own time and money. Obama owes her nothing.

Posted by: Mel | February 13, 2008 7:13 PM

Pierre --

Pierre --

Thank you. A voice of reason.

I have a question for you.

In the movie Sico, your medical system seems pretty good.

Many Americans believe that it can't be very good because its "socialized"

How is it?


Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 7:13 PM

Wait until you Obama supporters meet with
Rove, Rove(1) , Rove(n) from Republicans.
Are you ready, really?
Good luck!

Posted by: kcpark | February 13, 2008 7:15 PM

Obama has my vote. I don't believe even a great country like ours produces such a man very often.

Posted by: Ben | February 13, 2008 7:17 PM

Regarding Gerry's 4:00 PM post saying that Hillary didn't show up for an important Senate vote -- I think the Iran resolution was an important issue. Obama chose not to leave the campaign trail to go to Washington to vote against it. I don't remember what reason he gave for skipping the vote. However, now he is attacking Hillary for how she voted.

When Larry King interviewed Michele Obama, she answered one of Larry's question about why she thinks Barack is special. Some of the things she said are; this is a guy who, in the middle of this race, hasn't missed a parent-teacher conference; he took the girls Trick or Treating; he came home for a day to buy the Christmas tree and he took her out for their anniversary.

All of this is fine and shows me that he is a good family man. This also shows me that he can leave the campaign trail.

Since he didn't get a chance to vote against the Iraq resolution because he was not a U.S.Senator in 2002, one would think that he would have made it his business to get to Washington to put his money where his mouth is and vote against the Iran resolution. But he didn't.

Some people have said he didn't get to vote because of the short notice of when the vote was to be taken. Hillary made it to Washington, so he could have too. Now, he is using Hillary's vote against her during his campaigning. I think unless he was in his senate seat and voted no, that he has no right to criticize Hillary for voting yes. Being against an issue and voting against an issue are two different things. He ducked his senatorial responsibility, he didn't vote against a resolution that he opposes -- and he is getting away with it. Hopefully, this is not his M.O. Only time will tell.

Posted by: Hennessy | February 13, 2008 7:18 PM

People are so funny. They want the candidates to spell out in specific detail everything the would do as president. Only to turn around and say "hey" you said you were going to do this and that. No if Bush told you that he was going to break the country by waging a unsolicited war in Iraq and have more people losing their homes and have many of our young people lose their lives in a worthless war - WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED FOR HIM? Only an idiot would cut taxes while paying billions a week for a war and expect there not to be a huge deficit and more government speding than any democrat. The fact that Obama is not Bush is enough experience for me!

Posted by: Julescator | February 13, 2008 7:21 PM

'If Hillary is nominated she will deserve our vigorous support.'

Pssst
Don't tell Michele the wife of the uniter this. You can tell by the poisoning remarks here he has united us already.

Get real.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | February 13, 2008 7:25 PM

"Hey Ok and ELuv - you elitist just don't get it, do you? I am a union member and a low-wage worker, and I KNOW that low income folks - like the ones you were looking down at in Ohio - are not fools in any way! And we are the ones who have been voting for Hillary.

You two think you understand the issues better because you read the New Yorker and have a million degrees? Or play around on your Macs all day? It's the working folks who get it. We are the ones that know that heart and soul and insight comes from struggle. We want straight talk, not a bunch of slick marketing and "Change Express". We sure don't want to be called Obama-kins. Talk about patronizing. We won't stand for anything less than the real deal.

We love Hillary."

Posted by: Sarah | February 13, 2008 04:53 PM


Okay, Sarah, you make valid points. However, I see disconnect in your thinking. How can you, a person who is a union member and a low-wage worker (your words) vote for someone who represented and served as a member of the Board of Directors for Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart is violently anti-union and have closed entire stores rather than let their "associates" sign a union card. How do you square that with your thinking? We know Wal-mart do not do right by their employees in terms of pay, benefits and health insurance (the hot button issue of Hillary's campaign). Second, Mark Penn, the chief strategist for HRC's campaign, worked for a law firm that have anti-union companies as clients. So help me connect the dots to some unconnected dots between your love for Hillary and her devotion to Wal-Mart and many things anti-union?

Posted by: meldupree | February 13, 2008 7:25 PM

Hilary pushed of women's right and environmental changes in Walmart. When unable to change them she quit.

Go to wikipedia.org

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 7:30 PM

BTW - what you will pay in taxes to pay for Hillary's "Shoved down your throat Health Plan" will be far more than the medical preimums you pay now. A six year old can see that Hillary will make taxes go sky high and raise the capital gains tax to 28%. Her plans have no substance. I read them on her web site and they are jeuvenile.

Posted by: Julescator | February 13, 2008 7:30 PM

Keep it up, Clinton Supporters.

Keep telling us we can't do it....

It's worked so well for you so far.

Posted by: Duffman | February 13, 2008 7:32 PM

Hilary worked for children's right pro-bono. She proved her service by actions not words. Find me a senator/bright lawyer that does that.

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 7:32 PM

Hillary's plan saves tons of money. No matter who you are, you'll get better care, faster, and for less money.

That's the beauty of universal health care.

That's why other countries have gone to it.

It delivers better care, faster, and less expensively.

Right now we pay more, and get less for wht we pay, than anywhere else in the world.

It's broken, and we're going to fix it!


Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 7:33 PM

I guarantee you an increase in crime nationwide if Obama is elected.

Posted by: Nelson | February 13, 2008 7:34 PM

Universal Health Care. Every other modern country has it. Why don't we?

Posted by: svreader | February 13, 2008 7:36 PM

Obama bought a house lower than fair price. Owner said deal only closed if Obama's friend also bought land next to house. Friend then sold part of the land to Obama at cost.

At the end: Obama gets a discount on house. Friend left with part of land he did not need.

I smell BIG POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT he accuses Hilary of.

Can any Obama supporter please educate us on this?

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 7:42 PM

Will someone please clarify whether Hillary and Obama are talking about Health Care Insurance or Universal Health Care? I have been thinking they are talking about insurance coverage and keeping the cost of premiums down -- but some on here are mentioning Universal Health Care.

Posted by: Hennessy | February 13, 2008 7:46 PM

Instead of campaign speeches and information distortion, let's look at what health care economists have to say about mandates versus voluntary health insurance plans. Jonathan Gruber, one of the nation's leading health care economists, has a new scientific paper out on the subject (http://www.nber.org/papers/w13758). Under a plan like Hillary's with a mandate, it will cost $2,700 per additional person insured; under an Obama like plan (voluntary) it will cost $4,400 per additional person insured. The substantially greater savings under the Hillary like plan means that subsidizing those that cannot afford it will be easier. Since Obama claims that his objective is to reduce costs, he is, in effect, contradicting himself by not having a mandate.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 13, 2008 7:47 PM

Hillary is experienced and right. Obama is a drug and has a religious tone NO- WAY!
Rezko trial starts 3/3/08 and Mc cain has hid drug selling in Obamas own book ready

Posted by: Robin | February 13, 2008 7:47 PM

Nelson this is illogical.

"I guarantee you an increase in crime nationwide if Obama is elected. Posted by: Nelson | February 13, 2008 07:34 PM"

Posted by: CoRes | February 13, 2008 7:55 PM

Hillary makes women look incompetent as she blows over $100,000,000.00 before the primary is even over and puts her girlfiends in charge of her campaign. Love the mandated healthcare complete with wage garnishing if you don't pay. Like Bush or McCain? vote Hillary. Want to change this country with someone you respect? Vote Obama.

Posted by: Jean | February 13, 2008 8:49 PM

In Massachusetts there is a talk of recalling Duval Patrick because of his persistent backing of casinos and his support for Obama

Posted by: vs_sv | February 13, 2008 8:54 PM

I am a liberal democrat and I voted for Bill Clinton when I was 18. I believe that Hillary Clinton has the record to back her campaign. Obama is a negotiator! He has a hidden agenda that America does not need. If Obama wins the democratic nomination I will vote for John McCain! I will rally for McCain as well as making sure that every one in my family as well as friends vote republican. Obama is not what we need!!! He does not represent the majority of the US as current the popularity vote reflects!!!

Posted by: JB | February 13, 2008 8:55 PM

The new and not improved Hillary campaign is out in full force. Brace yourselves for rumors and outright lies. The Clintons are dirt spinners!

Posted by: Marnie42 | February 13, 2008 9:04 PM

I've read these comments on those who support Obama and those who support Clinton.

I see that many of you who support Obama are all wrapped up in the hype, because that is all that is. He offers "Hope". Whatever. Give me something concrete. What I see is someone like Martin Luther King that hyped everyone up with the "I have a dream..." speech. I'm sorry, but I don't want hype. I want action, answers and realistic results. Don't sell me a word, he should be promoting true issues. What does he really offer, what is the real "plan". Please! Come on now, we are in the United States. Give me freedom, give me justice...give me something real! So far, he hasn't done that. He's setting himself up for failure. Once he's in office, he'll either sink or swim, but I'm predicting sinking...Think about it...can he really give hope to everyone? No he cannot. Not unless he can revise every single statute, law, policy, change our government and so on. In order for us to have hope, it would be giving power back to the people as the constitution originally said we are to have. But as time went by, the Federal Government began to get more power than they were supposed to have. Now look where we are at. Is he going to do this? Is he going to give us back our power? I highly doubt it. So good luck with him as president...

Now with Clinton, at least we know her issues and what she supports, we even know some of her weaknesses already as we've seen her in the White House and as Senator. Does anyone remember this? They used to make jokes that Hillary was the one that actually ran the office. Remember, we had a surplus for the first time in so many years. Wouldn't that be nice again? Does he really know what being a president really means?

Clinton has her pros and cons like everyone else, but she at least has a focus and isn't selling hype. So when someone mentioned above about her being more of "calm down", this is what we need. Someone who is not going to get all excited when someone decides to bomb us again. I could just see it now. I've watched Obama on very often and from what I can see, I can see him freaking out saying "what do I do! What do I do!" Now Clinton takes things calmly and at stride, yet she is a go-getter..Look how far she's come. Not saying Obama isn't, but he is too dramatic and excitable for my liking.

So if people are only voting because they like someone's personality and are ignorant of the issues, please don't bother voting. Those who vote because of the issues, I wish there were more no matter which side you choose. At least then the president would be chosen for a better reason than being black or for being a woman.

Posted by: LKS | February 13, 2008 9:09 PM

Hey CoRes, let's have a competition. Pick any newspaper in America. We will compare the number of articles that newspaper has run mentioning Obama and the word scandal with the number of articles mentioning Sen. Clinton and scandal.

The HRC supporters wonder why no media or why she doesn't delve deeply into the controversies of Obamas political life. The obvious answer is that his controversies are chicken feed compared to hers. Why do a 10-page exposition on the $150,000 from the Chicago slumlord when Clinton had to give back millions raised by Hsu.

Why give big coverage on the Rezco house deal when she has things like the cattle futures, whitewater, etc.

See, the answer is she can't realistically call him a cheater or a crook, because it only opens up her real achilles heel, and she knows it.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 13, 2008 9:48 PM

Don't believe Hilary : Her campaign said they are banking on 3/4:

I thought wow!, Hilary just decided to give away Wisconsin/Hawaii to Obama and choose to concentrate on TX and OH.

Folks, I was wrong. I just read a blog that Hiraly's campaign site in Wisconsin is energized, fired up and ready to go. It's quite a strategy. Clinton campaign is deceiving us and trying to score a surprise win by making us believe that they don't care about Wisconsin and Hawaii. I was sooo stupid to believe that Clinton don't put energy in Wis. I remember thinking it odd.

Yes we (still) can! Wake up Obama supporters. Obama 08

Posted by: dhbalint1 | February 13, 2008 9:52 PM

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

Posted by: david51 | February 13, 2008 9:56 PM

It i-s do or die time but not for Mrs. Clinton ... For Obama.

Her campaign has gone negative in Wi, if Obama is really from "Chicago Politics" ... He will call her out time after time. He will drag her through the mud. He will remind the citizens of these United States how "cut throat" and "U-n-d-e-r Accomplished" she really is. He will proclaim for sea to shining sea what her candidacy truly represents: The P-u-p-p-e-t Presidency.

No one wants to say it but everybody knows the only thing that qualifies Mrs. Clinton to "Lead" on Day-1 ... is that her h-u-s-b-a-n-d is a former President and H-E will be calling the shots. Absolutely Nothing in her 6-year Senate run indicates that she is anything more than a "follower". Nothing in her 8-yrs as First Lady indicates that she is anything more than: A legend in "her" own mind. If she does become the nominee and President ... it will be a "Failed Presidency". Even if there is a Democratic Senate/House majority she will still need to bring in Republicans to get her agenda through. Democratic Legislators will not be able to vote straight party on policy. They will h-a-v-e to vote the issues the way it will affect the districts and peope they represent. What might benefit a southern state may not be beneficial to the folks in California. On issue after issue she will have to bring in Republicans and Independents to gain a majority. She is a N-O-T a uniter! She is polarizing. For all the talk about the "Glory Years" of the Clintons ... In his 2nd term there was Grid Lock in Washington. The people who suffered for that was us. It really doesn't matter whose to blame. There was enough to go around. Mrs. Clinton did n-o-t-h-i-n-g in that time to help mend the atmosphere. She was a Major Contributor to it. If that is the Record of EXPERIENCE she is so proud of ... This nation is better off without her.

Obama may be shallow to many here but HE IS a LEADER. Real Leaders know that He/She does not have to be the best at what they do. They just have to surround themselves with GOOD PEOPLE who are good at what they do and then INSPIRE THEM to achieve their goals. If the Methods and JUDGEMENT he has used in this campaign is any indication of what an Obama Presidency would look like ... He is obviously the B-e-s-t Choice for this N-a-t-i-o-n and the Democratic Party.

He, himself, is smart. He has surrounded himself with Good People who are, obviouly, Good at what they do. They obviously think "Outside of the Box". They have S-y-s-t-e-m-a-t-i-c-a-l-l-y challenged, met, competed, and by a slim margin ... Overcome a Political Dynasty. I would think the only people who are too blind to see this are just that: Blind Loyalist. Obama is t-h-e Force that Must N-o-w be dealt with and not dismissed. Even without the nomination (which I believe he will have), he will have turned the "Establishment" on it's ear and become a Power Broker.

For all the 35-Years of Experience Mrs. Clinton talks about it has not benefited her enough in this campaign. Her l-a-c-k of v-i-s-i-o-n and that of her team has put her in this "dog-fight" for the nomination. Her sense of "Entitlement" and "Condescention" to parts of the electorate has put her in this position. She certainly has time to turn it around but over half way through this process her candidacy (considering the lofty position She once held) in hind sight has to be considered Suspect ... If not a Failure.

Is this a Look into what Her Presidency would look like?

Just My Opinion ...

Posted by: Day24Day7 | February 13, 2008 10:29 PM

For a good joke by Penn Jillette about Hillary, google nytimes.com and then go to op-ed page,article #4 0f 19, this one being by Maureen Dowd called "A Flawed Feminist Test."

Posted by: majorteddy | February 13, 2008 10:38 PM

It's sad. What do the personal comments of a minister have to do with Obama?

(And for the record, we can quote chapter and verse of every young white woman who has disappeared and garnered mega media attention while others without those traits have comparably been ignored.)

But I digress. Here's where I am: I, like others, appreciate the fact that we have such a diversity of candidates on both sides of the political streams: Democrat and Republican. To some extent, we are all experiencing crises of belief.

In this discussion between Hillary and Barack, I'm disappointed in Hillary. She claims all those years of experience but many of those years are wholly dependent upon her husband. Without him, she would not be. And we still see remnant of that when she talks about the Clinton years versus the Bush years.

My feeling is that if she were the Democratic nominee that her baggage (including Bill) would be a gift to Republicans. She is quite divisive but more importantluy dismissive. How dare she really discount the voters in all those states that she lost? That is telling about her character.

As for Barack, he has tapped into something. I, too, would like for him to be a little more specific in his talks but not so specific as to turn him into John Kerry. Heck, I can read the materials on his website if I want to learn more.

And in fact, that's what people should do for all the candidates. Read their materials. Be informed. Do what you feel is best. I will.

Posted by: rthompson | February 13, 2008 10:44 PM

Hillary wants to debate because she has planted questions sent in for every debate.

Posted by: Candlebabe | February 13, 2008 10:47 PM

As a Liberal Democrat I find myself feeling deep misgivings about the Obama campaign. I feel like I am watching a remake of Robert Redford's "The Candidate."
Obama makes wonderful speeches written by others, but when it comes to defining his policies he comes up short. My gut tells me that it will be a mistake to have Obama as the Democratic nominee. I am feeling disheartened by his campaign rather than uplifted and the euphoria I had felt about a Democratic sweep is quickly being dissipated by the emptiness of his campaign. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary and I hope that by the time all is said and done that she will be the Democratic nominee. As strange as this may sound given the horror of the neo-con Bush years, I might actually have to refrain from voting if Obama is the nominee. I wish I could shake the misgivings I have about him - but the more I hear him speak, the more determined I am not to vote for him.

Posted by: Richard J. Anobile | February 13, 2008 10:55 PM

I am supporting Hillary Clinton for several reasons:
1. Experience. (This is the first time I've noticed people suddenly don't seem to think that's worth anything.)
2. Best healthcare plan. (Obama's is failing in Illinois now.)
3. Vision. She has had her eye on healthcare for a long time. She has polished and plan and positioned herself to be able to really make the change.
4. She is married to Bill Clinton who was a fantastic president during his time of no war and no debt. May his strengths rub off.
5. She is the underdog. Simply because she is a woman. She has paved a way for our female race to participate in ways never before. I thank her for that.
6. Connections. I don't know about you but I do know my connections in life always have helped me. She has been around these people for a long time now. She is well loved and respected abroad.
6. I believe the media is backing Obama not quite subliminally but very close to it. It is in their best interest (right wing) to have Obama up against McCain. Hillary would and hopefully will pose of serious threat. They have no dirt on her. Obama on the other hand, we all know so little about except that he has used cocaine. Funny they're not bringing it up now....waiting till it will matter. People are swept into a media movement. I wish people weren't quite so shallow.
7. Last but certainly not least, Hillary was asked during an extremely vunerable time to sign a bill to consider going to war if they sent in generals to examine the severity of a situation. She said yes, examine. Barack like to pretend like he said NO to this. I was most shocked when I discovered (because I was quite impressed by his "being right" speech) that he wasn't even on the senate during that vote. And when he did finally join in, he and Hillary had all the same votes on this subject. I personally think she made the wrong decision on hindsight, but I certainly understand how she could have. So i'm giving my support to Hillary Clinton. I think she is an amazing person and will do our country wonders.

Posted by: Adrienne | February 13, 2008 11:06 PM

Hillary wants to debate because she has something to say. She has ideas and plans long in the making. Obama can perform a written speech, but can he debate? Does he really have a plan in his head? I'd like to see.

Posted by: Adrienne | February 13, 2008 11:13 PM

Hillary's vote to authorize a senseless war, her inability to admit her vote was a mistake, and her pathetic excuse that she trusted George Bush not to abuse the authority she gave him, is a profile in spinelessness. I'm amazed that so may Democrats are willing to look the other way on such an important issue.

Posted by: WadeNYC | February 13, 2008 11:19 PM

Well I find it harder to except the fact that a man we know used cocaine would run for president of our United States. I also find it hard to know that just last week he was found lying on the campagine trail about passing an antinuclear bill that actually never passed. Her mistake was more understandable. His feel somehow worse. I want to be an Obama believer, like I want to be a Christian, but I can't just give it up to faith.

Posted by: Camille | February 13, 2008 11:33 PM

The truth of the matter is our country is in trouble. People are losing their homes, can't afford to drive their cars, and are afraid to get sick out of fear of having to finance medical fees. Our economy is in trouble, we're headed to a recession and people need help, now. In my opinion, an effective approach to reviving our country requires balancing the intricacies of the legislature and executive branches, state and federal governments, and private and public sector. Change has to occur in more places than Congress... it has to occur through a collective partnership between government and corporate America, legislative and executive agencies, federal and state governments, and succesful implementation of legislation post passage and appropriations. Hillary Rodham Clinton has had experience in all of the above. As a result, it is her exposure and understanding of the intersection of these interests in our nation that makes me confident that she is the person most qualified to achieve the balance between the private and public sector needed to bring our country back to health. Her experiences, discussed below, are unique and distinguish her from all the other candidates running for the presidency.

In sum, Hillary has served as:
A Presidential Appointee (under the Carter Administration)
A law professor (University of Arkansas)
A civil rights attorney (studying under Marian Edelman Wright and serving as a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund)
A board member of multiple non-profits
A board member of multiple corporations
Head of a state agency (having to implement federal directives to get federal funding)
Head of a federal agency (U.S. Legal Services Agency with $300million budget)
Partner of a law firm
Chair of the ABA's Women's Committee
Advisor to the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment
Representative of the U.S. internationally in 79 countries
and more....

Hillary's unique exposure to almost every aspect of our government and corporate America makes me extremely confident in her ability to oversee how these factors can, will, and should work together to improve our economy and our country.


Disclaimer regarding Hillary's experience as a first lady: I must admit that I believe that it is unreasonable for people to not acknowledge Hillary's role as an advisor to Bill during his presidency, especially since he ran his campaign on the platform that he'd bring the benefit of "two for the price of one." Even Republicans acknowledged her potential and actual role in the presidency, often referring derisively to the Clintons as "co-presidents," or sometimes "Billary". But because her record speaks volumes without the presidency, I will discuss her "experience," without referring to her role in advising Bill while First Lady of the United States.

Hillary's experience offers a "holistic" approach and understanding to the presidency... and it is because of way more than her time in the U.S. Senate that I feel she is the person best equipped to address the problems in our country at this time. When Hillary states she has 35 years of experience, she's not talking about writing up legislation. Hillary's experience is deeper than her role in the legislature. She's seen how our government works from ALL angles. Hillary's represented the U.S. internationally (in 79 countries) and domestically (in all 50 states). She's witnessed the pressures of a Presidency and of a Governorship. She's served under the executive branch (as a Carter appointee) and the legislative branch. She's served on the boards of non-profits and corporations. She's run a legal defense fund and served as partner at a private firm (Rose Law Firm). She's been the student (as a post-graduate scholar at Yale studying children rights in the law) and professor of law. She's served as a practitioner and as a legal theorist (writing several articles on Children's rights). She's provided/distributed federal funding (as head of the U.S. Legal Services Foundation) and received federal funding (as chair of Arkansas' Rural Health Advisor Committee). She's run federal agencies (as a Carter Appointee) and state agencies (as a Gubernatorial Appointee in Arkansas). She's passed legislation (both successfully and unsuccessfully) and had to implement it. All of these elements play a major role in the function of a government... and she has seen (and done) it all. Examples of some of her experiences (excluding anything related to her time in the white house) include:

Public Service
* Durig law school, Hillary worked for my Soror Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project and Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education
* HRC later ran and served as a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund
* Upon graduation from law school, Hillary put off legal practice and conducted post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Published article on "Children Under the Law" discussing the "new children's rights movement."
* Consultant to Carnegie Council of Children
* One of two women professors at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law

Experience balancing federalism (state and federal interests)
Instituting state policy based on federal funding
* Appointed as head of Arkansas' Rural Health Advisory Committee, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

Running State Level Agencies
* Chair of Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, focusing on reforming the state's court-sanctioned public education system
* Fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place
* Introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

Experience on Boards of Non-profits
* Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988-1992)
* Children's Defense Fund
* Chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it

Experience on Corporate Boards
* TCBY (1985-1992),
* Wal-Mart Stores (1986-1992) (first female member)
* Lafarge (1990-1992)

Federal Government Experience
Congressional Committee Experience
* Committee on Budget (2001-2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging, and Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] (since 2001).
*Served on impeachment inquiry staff, advising House Committee on the Judiciary during Watergate


Executive Branch (Government Agency Experience)
* Appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor. For much of that time[81] she served as the chair of that board (and was the first woman to do so). During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million. (1978-81),

Experience Abroad
* Represented U.S. in 79 countries
* Spoke before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, in defense of women rights.
* Spoke out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.
* Helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

Experience as a Senator
Senator Clinton has co-sponsored hundreds of resolutions and legislation during her time in the senate http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation/.

More specifically she has:
* Played a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.
* Introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act (with Bayh and Lieberman) intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games.
* Played a formative role in the eventual founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress
* Shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003
* Called on the president to provide support to Darfur
* Called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, (launching an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end.)
* Supported the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
* Introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.
* Supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including marriage penalty relief, property tax relief, and reduction in the Alternative Minimum Tax.
* Helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program.
* Worked to strengthen the Children's Health Insurance Program, which increased coverage for children in low income and working families.
* Authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism.
* Sponsored legislation to increase America's commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis
* Leading the fight for expanded use of information technology in the health care system to decrease administrative costs, lower premiums, and reduce medical errors.
* Ensured the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act
* Introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 to ensure better protection of votes and to ensure that every vote is counted.


Hillay's experiences make me feel confident that she has the know-how to properly monitor and assess the effectiveness of a government program after the legislation is passed and the money is approriated. Her time working in government agencies, corporate america, the public sector, state government, federal government and abroad help me to believe she has a true understanding of the balance between corporate and community interests necessary to truly promote healthy economic development and change. When looking at her record... Hillary's unique exposure to almost every aspect of our government and corporate America makes me extremely confident in her ability to oversee how these factors can, will, and should work together to improve our economy and our country.

And this is why I'm voting for her for president.

Posted by: raqihoo | February 14, 2008 12:11 AM

I must admit when I'm taken aback by comparisons of Obama to FDR and I felt like that comparison attempts to discount (or even ignore) the value of "executive" skill in a presidency and so I decided to conduct some research on who FDR was before becoming President of the United States. What's funny is that, when I look at his background... as one of our most revered presidents, celebrated for his "transformative" role in our government and for "inspiring" change in our country, I notice something that some Obama supporters appear to have overlooked: There's a reason why Senators often have trouble becoming president. While many celebrated Presidents of the past may have been charismatic, even more consistent than the "charisma" factor is their backgrounds. Prior to obtaining the presidency, FDR had extensive managerial experiece overseeing the implementation of hundreds of million dollar budgets, served as the head of a huge entity (as a Governor) in which he was granted executive power, and had extensive political and/or military experience abroad.

Prior to obtaining the presidency Franklin Roosevelt was:
* Governor of New York
* Appointed by President as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy, where he prepared for and advocated war with Spain in 1898. He organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the Rough Riders, during the Spanish-American War.
* Served as Vice President of the United States
*Appointed by President Roosevelt to the United States Civil Service Commission
* Served as president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners, reforming the notoriously corrup (at the time) police department

Also, while JFK is beloved, many of his most influential/transformative policies were enacted by LBJ (who was anything but charismatic).

Prior to being President, LBJ served as:
* Vice President of the United States
* LBJ was elected speaker of the "Little Congress," a group of Congressional aides, where he cultivated Congressmen, newspapermen and lobbyists. Johnson's friends soon included aides to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as fellow Texans such as Vice President John Nance Garner.
*head of the Texas National Youth Administration, which enabled him to use the government to create educational and job opportunities for young people
*Appointed by President Roosevelt to the Naval Affairs Committee
* Military/International Experience. During WWII, LBJ reported to General Douglas MacArthur in Australia. Johnson and two Army officers went to the 22nd Bomb Group base, which was assigned the high risk mission of bombing

Thus, when thinking about what makes a president effective and efficient, and exploring the backrounds of the leaders who have been effective as presidents in the past, I notice a holistic understanding of the factors effecting government. While charisma may have made them popular, experience gave them the know-how to implement the strategies they later became popular for discussing in a charismatic way. These Presidents had experience as managers of hundreds of million dollar budgets, served as Presidential and/or Gubenatorial appointees, and held positions in which they were able to implement of government based executive power. Given the state of our country economically, when choosing a president today, it's important to me that my President have the same mangerial and executive skills present in the backgrounds of those who successfully implemented transformative economic change in the past. As I noted in my preceding comment, Hillary has way more exposure and experience tayloring those skills than Obama, and that's why I'm voting for Hillary in '08.

Posted by: raqihoo | February 14, 2008 12:19 AM

Raqihoo. You have gathered so much information it's incredible. I admire you and am so proud to be alongside someone like you in our support of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: adrienneforest | February 14, 2008 12:20 AM

WOW . . . I'll just forward this for everyone to read . . . I got this from the Huffington Post and have no reason to doubt it's authenticity: McCain Adviser Won't Fight Obama Email Share February 13, 2008 6:48 PM ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: A top adviser to John McCain said Wednesday that he will step down from the Arizona senator's presidential campaign if the presumed GOP nominee faces Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in the general election. "I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama," said McCain adviser Mark McKinnon in an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered." "I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign." McKinnon, who was a Democrat before serving as President Bush's ad maker in 2000 and 2004, said that he plans to be behind McCain "100 percent" no matter who the Democratic nominee is. He explained, however, that if the Democrats nominate Obama, he will be supporting McCain "from the sidelines." While saying that he does not agree with Obama on every issue, McKinnon gushed about the Illinois Democrat. "I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal," said McKinnon. "I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would a great race for the country."

Posted by: Anonymous | February 14, 2008 12:45 AM

Ok, clearly people love Obama for his wonderful inspiration and if you can't tell the media favors this new sugar coated message but America as a country needs a bit more than that. America needs an surgical operation to restore its health. Obama can't do it and Hillary can but the elite prefer Obama because he is less dangerous and he will do less while he is president. If people don't see that then I feel sorry for you. Let me give you an example, the halls of power are not worried about his "hope" message in fact they are quite happy with it. If they are not worried then why are they so worried about Hillary being president. Ask yourself why Obama is more favorable in the eyes of many mainstream democrats because they smell a dynasty. They want the power back and they see a great opportunity with Obama. Correct me if I am wrong but I dont see how the country will benefit from such a play on power. Hillary can fix the course that the country is on and it will be painful at first but in the long run, the country will be back on track. If you want a revolution then put Hillary in there and if you want the same old practices then elect Obama, the democrats answer to Bush.

Posted by: Gary from California | February 14, 2008 12:56 AM

Well this CAN'T help . . .

Has everyone seen the article on Earmarks by the candidates?

John McCain is one of 5 Senators who rejects all uses of earmarks. Good for him!

Senator Obama included $91 Million in earmarks last year. This places him in the lower one quarter of all Senators who use earmarks. Obama adheres to using earmarks only to support public entities. Not too shabby.

HILLARY CLINTON included $340 Million in earmarks last year placing her in the top ten of US Senators for this category. Ms. Clinton uses earmarks anytime she can score a little pork for her home state (no wonder she managed to win her home state primary). One of the more infamous earmarks that Hillary is taking heat for in a John McCain ad is Hillary's request for One Million dollars for a museum dedicated to the Woodstock music festival. Somehow I don't think this is what Hillary had in mind when she invited voters to take her "35 years experience" into account and examine her record! And Hillary still claims that she is the best candidate on the issue of the ECONOMY?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 14, 2008 1:02 AM

Thank you both for your passionate and thought provoking words. I have and will continue to think about your thoughts as they vary so far from my own. I could dialog about this for awhile...would love to respond to your responses. But it's getting late. Tomorrow is another day.

Posted by: Adrienne Forest | February 14, 2008 2:18 AM

I'm sick of all the hype about Obama and his popularity especially amoung college students. I am a college student and I believe Obama is a fake. He is all show and no substance. He offers false promises of hope and change, but what excally is he going to change? He has not given a single explaination for where he stands or what he will do. The other reason he is a fake is all the nonsense he says about Iraq. If people have not forgotten he was not even in the senate at the time of the vote to invade Iraq. If Obama would have been in the senate he would have voted for the invasion because America was still recovering from the tragedy of 9'11 and the all the senators at the time were under great pressure to protect the country. All the nonsense he says about speaking out against the war is nothing more then nonsense that someone can say who has no power and does not have the responsibility of protecting people or the country then and now. Please America elect someone who has the knowledge and the drive to protect America and its citizens. Vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Sara | February 14, 2008 2:18 AM

Obama bought a house lower than fair price. Owner said deal only closed if Obama's friend also bought land next to house. Friend then sold part of the land to Obama at cost.

At the end: Obama gets a discount on house. Friend left with part of land he did not need.

I smell BIG POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT he accuses Hilary of.


steveboyington: You bought into Fox News propaganda when you vaguely referenced Hilary's "scandals". Please give me a step by step argument like the above.

The issue is not media hype, it's integrity and honesty. It'ds what you do when no one's looking. Obama only returned his pal's $$$ after the news broke. What was Obama gonna offer Rezko if this shady deal was not found out? I don't want Rezko in the white house socializing with the president.

John MaCain is the more attractive candidate compared to Obama. I don't agree with his views, but I can trust his words. I was sadden how Bush took him down.

Posted by: CoRes | February 14, 2008 3:23 PM

In bed with the enemy???

Bush seems more comfortable with Sen. Hillary Clinton as a successor than Sen. Barack Obama, judging by his comments in the Fox News Interview. He told Wallace that he had predicted a Clinton victory months ago "because I knew that she understands the klieg lights and understands the pressures." He also defended Bill Clinton, saying that he understands why the former president "wants to campaign hard for his wife." He seems confident that Clinton won't abruptly withdraw from Iraq, regardless of her campaign rhetoric.

Posted by: jc | February 14, 2008 3:39 PM

If America thinks like jc, we are doomed.

My view about Obama and Hilary is my own. I don't take it from Bush, or Wallace.

I use critical thinking, and logic. Do you?

Posted by: CoRes | February 14, 2008 3:48 PM

Sarah, I applaud you for standing up for the working class and lending your truly important voice.

MelDupree, the elitist attitude won't get this country anywhere. The dots your "trying to connect" in her "argument" is clearly not researched well. Look back on the years that Mrs. Clinton was actually on the board, and then ask your demeaning questioning. You'll find that it's largely inappropriate.

The AP, MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times have accounted for the ideological tenor of Mr. Obama's campaign and the chord it strikes with the "educated". i.e., "Finally, a president that lines up with everything we've been studying and hoping to change!"

Inspiration is indeed important, but to whose benefit? Substance wins in my book.

By the way, MelDupree, before you begin dismissing me as an ignorant, un-educated type, I have two degrees behind me and will be sitting for my dissertation this year. Please leave the elitism at home.

Posted by: David | February 14, 2008 3:54 PM

The arguments for Obama are simple:

1. She voted and actively encouraged others to vote for the war. There is nothing wrong in what she did. Many democrats voted for the war with the information they were provided. HER PROBLEM IS SHE DOES NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY. Of course Obama was against the war -- a losing position to take when you are running for the Senate.
2. She had her chance to implement the Health Care plan when her husband was the President. She bungled it. There is no evidence that she can do something differently. When the Republicans hear the name Clinton they are against the idea. I believe Obama's strategy is to take the first big step and see if the Republicans will agree.
3. Her image of accepting big donations --right or wrong-- is a big problem. We are a rich country. We want a President who can independently manage the country and not be obligated to special interests.
4. She does have a few more years of legislative experience-- but that pales in comparison to his grass roots experience.
5.He is obviously great at inspiring this country. Otherwise so many leaders in this country-- such as the Kennedys to all those Governors-- would not have given him a second look.
6. Obama's life itself is an Odyssey. From Hawaii to Jakarta to California to Boston to Chicago--not understanding why people call you a black man when your blood mother is a white woman--not understanding why you can not become the Harvard Law Review President unless you have blue blood--on and on-- that alone is enough for me to ask my 16 year old to set his sight higher and say: If Obama can you can too!


Posted by: Anita | February 14, 2008 5:00 PM

Voting for Hillary is as good as making Mc.Cain win elections ahead of nomination. Obama momentum has already sent shivers thru Mc Cain and he started targeting Obama since potomac win.

One Clinton has defamed dignity of American presidency and democratic party and we dont need another to make it worse .... Clintons had their chance and we dont need to have another black page in american history.

Posted by: Desi | February 14, 2008 5:34 PM

Obama wave isn't a campaign; it's a movement, caused by the media. Now there's a music video to really minimize the seriousness of the presidency leaving us to wonder--Is it Obama or Bono running for president. At least Bono's change is definitive and real--he is not just singing about change, he has a strong record of causing change through action (Aids, poverty, etc...). Obama is questionable: For instance, examine all his talk about "opposing the war from the beginning". He claims that he has better judgment because he didn't vote for the war. But everybody is to mesmerized to realize that he didn't vote "against" it either. And the media hates Hillary so much that they let him get away with this "sin of omission". It is easy for Obama to say he opposed the war from the start but he was sitting back in the Illinois Legislature. He was not walking out of briefings with that look of horror and disbelief that most Members had at the time after hearing shocking stories of WMD, etc. from officials they were supposed to be able to trust to provide the best information. We now know the Administration exaggerated and extrapolated the facts to encourage Members to reach the conclusion the Administration wanted. But Obama wasn't there, wasn't subjected to those briefings, and didn't have to cast that difficult vote. I hear too many people say they are voting for Obama because he opposed the war from the start and Hillary has changed her position, not realizing that Obama did not have to make that vote. An opposing speech does not equate to an opposing vote. And for Obama to make these misleading statements, he is at the same time minimizes the weight, difficulty and seriousness of that decision that he did not have to make. But when he did enter the senate in 2005, all his votes aligned with those who voted for the war. But the media continues to force us on a blind date with Obama, knowing that very few blind dates result in marriage.

Posted by: Christine | February 14, 2008 6:04 PM

The point of view of a Frenchman.

Some people enumerate tones of reasons for which they would vote for Obama. For the greater part, these reasons are not political and rather very personal. "I like Obama" is a keyword. But is it about politics?

Some people (very funny, indeed) consider his life as an Odyssey (sic). From Hawaii to Jakarta to California to Boston to Chicago.. Some other people vote Obama because he's Black (sorry, one should say "African american" or whatever the political correctness would say about his genes).

Is this quality political? Obviously not.

Actually all these "reasons" reflect the political crisis in mentalities and education. Media, media and media, that's what actually create and drive your opinion. And you are stupidly follwing and debating what the media have deceided for the moment.

At this moment the media like Obama because it's an event or even a scandal. But later, when the media will empty all the possibilities in exctracting the spectacular thing from Obama, well when the media will be tired of Obama, the question would arise: what's next?

And the "next" with such a superficial, such a virtual president means: sitting and waiting for the next elections. Good luck!


Posted by: Pierre Le Loup | February 15, 2008 6:07 AM

I have to say...You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, and maybe this is just not your day. I AM against continued funding of a war that has gone on tooooooo long and some people keep bringing up this issue... but I will tell you this, this is our home and if someone was to attack your home, family, etc... you would go at them full force, at least anyone I know...whether it was legally or otherwise (you just do not mess with someone's family...capiche?) So I do not blame anyone that at first agreed upon this war...focus was to be on the people responsible for 9/11 but when we had them BUSH decided (b/c of his fathers vendetta) to go after Saddam Hussein...but that's another story. I believe that an effective President is going to take care of home FIRST; then, matters abroad can then be considered. How can you feed your neighbor if you do not have the means to feed your own family? MATTERS at home come FIRST...We are looking at a recession and I do believe that Hillary is the best candidate to bring us out of such a situation. But come on people, many of you say that you would vote for MCCain, or not vote at all, if she were the Dem. Nominee? Well that is your right to vote for someone else but to not practice your right to vote after many have suffered to give us that right...Ignorance is the word that really comes to mind. We had 4 bad years of G.W. Bush; because of people with your mentality of "I'd rather not vote because I do not like either candidate" is why we got another 4 bad years with the current President. Personally, I did not feel that Kerry at the time was such a strong candidate, but, hell my six year old son would have been better than that Mickey Mouse President we have now...WHO in there right mind would give any man another 4 years to F..K up more SH.T after the previous term... but whatever...
Behind every "Good President" there has been a "Good Strong Woman"...Maybe; just maybe...it is time, to have, a "Good Strong Man" behind a "Good President!"
I will vote for Obama Barack if he becomes the Dem. Nominee, but not because I want 4 years of "preaching" but because he would be my second choice and I WILL PRACTICE MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT...TO VOTE!!!

PS: liked what you said LKS

Posted by: B_in_TX | February 15, 2008 2:35 PM

Oh! Yeah, Let's get our troops home!

Posted by: B_in_TX | February 15, 2008 2:37 PM

I have read all the above and not seen one word saying Hillary is honest, trustworthy, considerate, cooperative or courteous. When she says she will fight for the middle class she means she will threaten, manipulate and intimidate anybody who gets in her way. The whole congress will be on her enemies list as she surrounds herself with yes men. What if I don't want healthcare, what will ahe do to me?

Posted by: DotCom | February 15, 2008 2:58 PM

I'm a gay female and can spot one of my own kind a mile away. Can someone please tell me the name of her plastic surgeon, he/she really does nice work.

Posted by: DIKE | February 15, 2008 3:53 PM

DotCom:
It's Politics...None of the candidates, upon entering as president will be having a "play date" where they need to show their manners they have to be strong enough to go head on into an administration left behind by a bunch of Snakes...

Posted by: B_in_TX | February 15, 2008 4:01 PM

Thanks for replying B_in_TX but if a president want to get anything done they don't do it all by themselves. Congressmen and women have been elected by their constuents and deserve to be treated with respect, they are not easily intimidated or manipulated so they will gang up on her and stonewall her, she'll get frustrated and Bill will become the acting president but maybe that was the plan all along.

Posted by: DotCom | February 15, 2008 5:31 PM

DotCom: why wouldn't you want healthcare? How foolish! If you have a car, you have car insurance. You have a body. Please get insurance. Otherwise, you and maybe those you love, stand to lose a lot. I know, I work in healthcare and I have seen this over and over again. Your argument is not well thought out. Good luck.

Posted by: Minnesota | February 17, 2008 6:02 AM

jc - neither Hillary or Obama will be able to withdraw from Iraq quickly. It cannot be done quickly - that would spell disaster for our troops. So, no matter what either of them say about withdrawl from Iraq, it will take time to do it right. The important part is they are calling for withdrawl and believe in it.
And to others who believe Hillary will split the country and unite the republicans against her, don't be so naive as to think the same is not true for Obama. It will be hard for either of them, but I certainly hope if she wins the nomination you will be able to support her to the white house despite your opinions. The reality is the two of them are not far apart on their beliefs and their policies, so stop with hating her and start with realizing they both want change and will fight to get it for us.

Posted by: Minnesota | February 17, 2008 6:14 AM

Christine, I have to agree with you about Obama not supporting the war. He wasn't there to vote. He didn't have to make that heavy decision and he wasn't the senator from NY. (I do think this weighed heavily for Hillary)
If you would like to read Hillary's statement to the President and the Senate regarding her vote check this out...

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Posted by: MN | February 17, 2008 6:20 AM

Minnesota - Do you think Bill Gates has to buy healthcare or Warren Buffett? What about the 12 million illegal aliens, are they going to come out of the shadows and give their right name and social security number to a healthcare company? If I were a healthcare company I would certainly want every person in the country to be required by law to buy my product. Healthcare companies are not charities, they are in business to make money, and she would deduct it from your paycheck or your social security check to give it to them. Employers would be forced to cover their employees to the point that would put them out of business. The result would be the same as in other socialized countries, a huge blackmarket where crime thrives. Her idea of socialized medicine proves she is a Marxist who believes in class warfare, rich vs poor. What she wants is not a pleasant, orderly evolution but revolution. Notice how she got everyone to call her by her 1st name Comrade Hillory vs. Capitalist Mr. Obama, fight vs cooperation. The congress is not so easily fooled. They stonewalled her on healthcare and everything else she tried before and they will do it again if she is elected. Also notice how the man who was leading the fight to have the primary votes in Florida not be counted suddenly made a complete 180 and is now the chief advocate for having them counted since she won and says there has been no change (a total lie) How did she get him to do that? She is a lieing, conniving, backstabing, vicious dike and I couldn't support her in a million years and neither could many other people. She and Obama have nothing in common!
As for Iraq, being against it from day one was as obvious as it could be, that's why millions of people all over the world protested to try to prevent it. Thats why the UN voted against even after that huge speech and slide show. It's like Hitler invading Poland or Napoleon invading Russia. It's a violation of the UN charter and all international law. England is slowly moving out right now. We got out of Vietnam and we can get out of Iraq.

Posted by: DotCom | February 17, 2008 12:03 PM

Anita and the Pollsters:

You forgot a to ask key question: Would independent Clinton supporters vote for McCain? Yes for me.

I cannot trust someone that hijacks the Democratic(or any) nomination with "words". McCain is proven in his records unlike Obama.

I vote for known quantity, as would many result-driven voters. A word-driven Democrat is not as good as a proven Republican to us.


Voting for Hillary is as good as making Mc.Cain win elections ahead of nomination. Obama momentum has already sent shivers thru Mc Cain and he started targeting Obama since potomac win.

One Clinton has defamed dignity of American presidency and democratic party and we dont need another to make it worse .... Clintons had their chance and we dont need to have another black page in american history.

Posted by: CoRes | February 19, 2008 3:16 PM

Anita said:


============
Voting for Hillary is as good as making Mc.Cain win elections ahead of nomination. Obama momentum has already sent shivers thru Mc Cain and he started targeting Obama since potomac win.

One Clinton has defamed dignity of American presidency and democratic party and we dont need another to make it worse .... Clintons had their chance and we dont need to have another black page in american history
==============

Posted by: CoRes | February 19, 2008 3:18 PM

"We don't know anything about Obama" is another lie by the Clinton campaign. If you are interested in politics at all you should read his book "The Audacity of Hope". It was on the NYTimes best seller list for many weeks. There he spells out everything he stands for and I'm sure Hillory read it, wouldn't you if you were her? Or you could go to his website and read his biography and resume also. On the Newshour the other day, the head of the Clinton campaign and the head of the Obama campaign were interviewed together. The first said "Obama has no fiscal policy". The second one said "Here is Obama's fiscal policy: Point A, Point B, Point C and Point D". Then the first one said "Obama has no fiscal policy". It was UNREAL.

Posted by: DotCom | February 21, 2008 11:12 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company