Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:52 AM ET, 03/ 5/2008

Clinton stumbles on Ohio history

By Michael Dobbs


Celebrating victory in Columbus, Ohio, March 5, 2008

"No person has ever won the White House without winning the Ohio primary, in either party...Somehow the people of Ohio end up picking the winners."
--Hillary Clinton, interview with Columbus, Ohio, TV station, March 4, 2008.

It has become part of political mythology that you cannot win the presidency without carrying Ohio. (Actually John Kennedy pulled off this feat in 1960, winning the general election even though he lost Ohio by 273,000 votes.) But can you win the presidency without winning your party's Ohio primary? History suggests that Hillary Clinton is wrong on this point.

The New York senator made the "No person has ever won the White House" claim in an interview with an Ohio TV station while waiting for the results to arrive. She qualified the claim later in the evening, in her victory speech, when she added the words "in recent history."

Let's take a quick look at the history of the Ohio primary.

The Facts

Ohio held its first primary in 1912. On the Democratic side, Ohio governor Judson Harmon beat out New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson. But Wilson went on to win the presidency that year, disproving the Hillary Clinton theory of Ohio politics a century before she came up with it.

Flash forward to May 1932. Favorite son George White wins the Democratic Ohio primary with the expectation that he would support former Secretary of War Newton Baker, but Franklin D. Roosevelt goes on to become president.

Ohio historian (and Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist) Thomas Suddes also pointed me to the May 1952 Ohio primary when the GOP at-large delegates were all pledged to Ohio Senator Robert Taft. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who eventually won the presidency, was not on the ballot.

In 1960, the Ohio Democratic primary was won by favorite son Gov. Michael DiSalle, who eventually pledged his delegates to John Kennedy after a good deal of arm-twisting from the Kennedy brothers. Favorite sons also won the 1964 and 1968 primary elections in Ohio, on both sides of the political divide.

In 1968, for example, Governor James A. Rhodes controlled all 58 delegates to the GOP convention, withholding his votes until it became apparent that Richard Nixon would win the nomination. Rhodes later achieved a notoriety of sorts by ordering state troopers to suppress anti-war protests at Kent State in 1970.

More recently, Ohio primary voters have gone with the eventual winner of the presidential race. But according to Andrew Cayton, a professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Oh., this factoid is fairly meaningless. In recent years, Ohio has typically held its primaries late in the election season, by which time a winner has already emerged.

Clinton "has taken a little bit of a liberty here," agreed Herb Asher, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. "Maybe what she meant to say was as far back as she can remember."


The Pinocchio Test

I will give Hillary Clinton a point for qualifying her claim later in the evening (although she never acknowledged the original mistake.) While she is right about the last few elections, that is a fairly meaningless statement, as Professor Cayton points out. As to whether the qualified claim is technically correct, it all depends on how you define "recent history."

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | March 5, 2008; 11:52 AM ET
Categories:  3 Pinocchios, Candidate Watch, History  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'NAFTA-gate', Part II
Next: Taxing questions for Clinton

Comments

Typo: you wrote 1962 as the year Kennedy won the presidency, instead of 1960.

Posted by: Steve C | March 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

How about defining "recent history" as anything within the past 40 years?

Posted by: JakeD | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Steve C, I have corrected it.

Posted by: The Fact Checker | March 5, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

She may have clarified her comment last night, but went on to make the exact same statement on the morning shows. Thanks for posting this, because when I heard it, I believed her!

Posted by: Lauren | March 5, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

She IS Pinochio, and not after he learned to stop lying. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton will say and do anything for her personal ambition. The press has left her alone on this. They didn't make anything about the fact that her campaign distributed that picture of Obama with a turban on, with Maggie Williams trying to get indignant. They didn't make anything about her "as far as I know" qualification on 60 minutes when asked about Obama's religious orientation. Her campaign has been one of half truths and distortions, and constant smearing. If she wins by swaying super delegates, even if it's because she's been able to diminish Obama using racism and fear, she will tear apart the party. She will create long term apathy on the part of blacks and young people, and any chance we have of changing the country will be lost for at least a generation. Some think winning is everything, and how you win doesn't count, but you'll never build a working majority in this country if people don't trust you. Bill Clinton wasn't able to do it, and neither will Hillary.

Posted by: Nelson Yu | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Although this column is not perfect, it is a model of what all journalism should be.

It is distressing to me that there has to be a special, niche column called the "fact checker." Didn't our entry into the Iraq war teach us anything about the media's responsibility to fact-check statements by public figures, rather than act as a manipulable conduit for half-truths? There is an implicit endorsement, like or not, when a newspaper uncritically "passes along" what a public figure says. It is like passing along false gossip about what you "heard" and then claiming that you're not to blame because you didn't start the rumor.

C'mon, Post, step up and set a better standard for journalism. The Fact Checker is your template.

Posted by: fuquafalcon | March 5, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Was she really still making this claim on the morning shows? That's disgusting.

If she wanted to be honest and clear, she would have said 'since Nixon'. Obviously she has other priorities....

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I have read that the Clintons are worth more than $ 50 million.

Is this true and, if so, do you think that is the reason that they do not want to release their tax returns?

If Senator Clinton does not want to release her tax returns, do you know where we can look to find out more about her personal wealth.

As someone who lives off a paycheck and worries about the economy's impact on my family's future, I would like to know if Senator Clinton really feels our pain. Perhaps the Washington Post (to which I subscribe) could wrtie an article on this.

I would appreciate a similar analysis of senator Obama's personal wealth, for that matter.

Posted by: Virginia | March 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

right, Obama OUTRIGHT lies about NAFTA and you're okay with that.

CLinton makes a date mistake and you are all a-tizzy.

GO watch SNL, you're an arsehole

Posted by: newagent99 | March 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for calling Clinton out on this one. However, I still think that the press needs to avoid going light on Clinton just because she complains. She made a previous statement that she would release her tax returns. Please follow this issue closely. She is the master of manipulation and the press should not let her get away with it.

Posted by: Doug M | March 5, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"I still think that the press needs to avoid going light on Clinton just because she complains."

I agree 100% It seems as if HC bought of the news media lately. I too have noticed the Hillary show since she whined about her coverage. Between Fox News and now CNN I am appauled. I get more real facts from sites like this! Thanks

Posted by: California | March 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Sorry fact checker but you're just splitting hairs it is a fact that Ohio is crucial to winning the Whitehouse end of story.

Posted by: steinway | March 5, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for clarfying the point because i was under the impression that it was so--Now who will put it on the TV or talk radio show so that other americans and the world will know that Sen. Clinton was not speaking the truth--By the way when are you guys going after her for the tax returns and those paper that Mr. Russett asked her about on MSNBC. thanks

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

This article is ludicrous, especially as Clinton said 'in recent history'.

The other ridiculous statement is: "this factoid is fairly meaningless... [as] Ohio has typically held its primaries late in the election season".

It's now 2 months since Iowa, and a month after super tuesday. Seems pretty late in the season still!

Posted by: Laurence | March 5, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

All I have to say is, in the spirit of Texas,
Giddyup Girl! Go Hillary!

All she has to do listen to her advisors (Mark Penn specifically, dump that loser) less and trust herself more, we're confident and the people of Ohio and Texas were confident in her ability.

Posted by: Adam | March 5, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"It's now 2 months since Iowa, and a month after super tuesday. Seems pretty late in the season still!"

The point it's making is that in every single primary campaign that she was referring to, someone had already clinched the nomination, so winning Ohio was meaningless. Her win means just as much as the 12 delegates she gained on him. Only 130 more to go. Cause that's going to happen.

Hillary needs to leave the race now, or we're practically handing it to McCain.

Posted by: James | March 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised and more than a little disappointed that there are still Americans out there (at least in Ohio and Texas) who think it is acceptable and are willing to support a candidate who uses scare tactics and smear campaigns as a desparate means to win at any cost. Hillary has been very negative and, as was pointed out on CNN last night, is actually doing the Republicans' job for them for McCain to win the presidential election. Please America, stand up and say enough is enough with the mud slinging. If you can't win without negative and false accusastions in your campaigning, than you don't deserve to win. This means you Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: VA Independent | March 5, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

since when have the late '60s been considered recent?! of course her victory in ohio doesn't mean she will be the nominee. it's just an interesting fact that in the last 40 years, ohio's winners have been the candidates. i think it's perfectly legitimate for her to say that... why is this a big deal?!

Posted by: cgarner | March 5, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I do not see how Hillary wins this fair and square. Obama is ahead in the popular vote even if you include Florida. Remember his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. He has won 27 of the 40 states contested so far. He has a nearly 160 pledged-delgate lead, which might grow to about 200 by the time this is over. He does not even need a majority of the remaining superdelegates to get to 2025. He needs about 37%.

Posted by: Ni | March 5, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh, she said to Jon Stewart her husband had clinched the nomination in June, only. WRONG. A Huffington Post commenter did some research and found out it was end of March.

Don't you think the little white lies are somewhat pathological. I stumbled across some more today. Hillary Clinton holds the press in contempt (men's room incident) and I am afraid the electorate, too.

Posted by: old_europe | March 5, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Is it really too much to ask that someone who wants to be in charge of the free world should at least have their word mean something? I mean, the flow of spin and dishonesty from the Clinton camp has been absolutely non-stop, and it's way beyond the point where it could be construed as innocent misunderstanding or misinformation. They've clearly assumed that voters are idiots, that the media will say whatever they're told, and that somehow it's appropriate to say whatever it takes to win, democracy be damned.

Posted by: davestickler | March 5, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The '60s are pretty recent if you consider that Ohio hasn't played a meaningful role in selecting the nominee since then. As old_europe says, the little lies told by the Clinton campaign, and the candidate herself, are absolutely pathological. I just don't trust a word that comes out of their mouths any more.

Posted by: davestickler | March 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

SHE SAID, "IN RECENT TIMES....."

Posted by: election by media? | March 5, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

this is pretty much a hog wash about nothing. I heard her when she said recent history. And I heard a fact before the show that said something akin to no president running for the office has won it without getting Ohio in like 50 years.

Why the big fact check and pinoccio noses over this when they both have said larger untruths on more important topics?

Posted by: O.D. | March 5, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I say Hillary should release her tax returns. Just as soon as Obama releases his pork bills for 2005 and 2006 Does any politician feel your pain? A few might but they soon forget. Does Obama or Hillary feel your pain. Not no, but hell no.

Posted by: bnw173 | March 5, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

You gave Hillary three pinocchios for her Ohio statement while giving Obama two for his denials about NAFTA? While Hillary's is based on a commonly held misconception about politics, call it folklore, Obama's is based on his integrity, on his saying one thing to voters while secretly saying another to foreign officials. This goes beyond NAFTA. Do we really want someone like that in the White House?

This rating system of yours is a joke, based on your biased opinion.

Posted by: ToadTreeHugger | March 5, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse


SHE SAID, "IN RECENT TIMES....."

Posted by: election by media? | March 5, 2008 04:13 PM
_____________________

This morning I heard her say it with my own hears and very clear thinking. She said, "no one has ever won the Presidency if they did not win Ohio." Just as arrogant as she has ever been. She is like a child you let them have something one time and they get carried away. Hillary does not understand, even if by some miracle she does manipulate her way into becoming the Democratic nominee - - she will never be President. There are too many Democrats,Republicans, and Independents that will not allow it. She had better enjoy whatever time she spends in lala land now, because this is it. This as far as she is going to get to the Presidency - - you bank on that. I will help John McCain and the Republican party the way that they help her last night. So the ones of you who are in that "deep sleep" with her, I am giving you a wake up call, "ain't gonna happen".

Posted by: Dee | March 5, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

She said it recent times. GET IT STRAIGHT!

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

I'm giving YOU three Pinocchios for referring to the last NINE presidential elections as "the last few elections." You need to catch up, man. The Media is off Clinton; you guys are now ganging up on Obama. Just follow the pack, like always.

Posted by: Rick | March 5, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

What about the fact that the primary competition is usually over by now and a clear leader would have emerged? When you have one candidate by this time and Ohio votes for that person, what weight does Ohio actually have in determining the next democratic nominee...none. That is a good example of fuzzy logic. Where is the leadership in the Democratic Party? They seem to remain silent as Hillary and Obama tear each other apart, further alienating the moderate Republicans and Independents we so desperately need this election. Why is no one writing about the importance of uniting our party NOW before the Republicans have a stronghold on the key voters.

Posted by: Katy G. | March 5, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has shown us once again that she will say or do whatever it takes to win. she is all form, no substance. She continues to slander Obama and misrepresent his record, and wants us to know she is doing this because we, The American People, need to know. ummmm, sure.

She and Bill can never win the White House because they are literally hate magnets. Of course McCain wants to run against her - she's easy to beat. She's told too many lies.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Is this a race for the next presidential nominee or a race for Freshman Class President? Seems like some of the people here forget that both Obama and Clinton share very similar views. Isn't getting Hillary or Obama elected a matter of policy and Democratic idiology? These folks that will 'jump ship' if Hillary is the nominee are not listening to their candidate about hope for unification and the future. They seem to be encouraging everything Obama does not stand for. His followers seem to be the most devisive of all ("vote for Obama or I swear I will vote Repubican"-- geez,sounds like sour grapes from a 12 year old). Obama is still ahead. Stop being silly with stupid threats. You're not helping your candidate unify the party. Instead, you're alienating other Democrats.


Posted by: Drew | March 5, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

More spin, innuendo and distortion. No one has ever won the nomination without enough delegates!

Posted by: thebobbob | March 5, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You flunk a history exam and get three pinocchios. You lie about a meeting with Canada on NAFTA and get two. How about them apples?

Posted by: Chief | March 5, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Why would I trust Clintons to manage the economy if they refuse to release their tax returns and hide information about money paid to them by foreign leaders.

Who will they respect more? who will they listen to? Those people who paid them or you, who gave her one vote. Don't expect to be invited to the Whitehouse because you voted for her. She doesn't know your name and she will forget you, but she sure knows and will remember every single name of the lobbyists and foreigners who pay them.

Tim

Posted by: Tim | March 5, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Texas Update
AUSTIN -- Obama Texas State Director Adrian Saenz issued a statement on the projected primary and caucus results that show Senator Obama won more Texas delegates than Senator Clinton.

"By fighting the primary to a near-draw and earning a resounding victory in the caucus, the people of Texas have moved Barack Obama one step closer to claiming the Democratic nomination for president," said Adrian Saenz. "Texans in both parties and of all ages sent a clear message that the American people are ready for the kind of change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, DC as our 44th President."

Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 5, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Bah! Humbug. Flattering a state with dubious historical claims gets maybe a cou[ple of nose splinters. The old adage wasn't that you had to win your primary anyway. The actual adage is that any REPUBLICAN who couldn't carry Ohio couldn't get elected, more in line with the record.

No Republican who can't carry Ohio can get elected, because when the republicans can't carry Ohio things tend to be goping bad for them anyway. Democrats (notably Kennedy) can win without Ohio, when other things break their way, but if the tide is running against Republicans in Ohio, it is running strongly against them else where.

Hillary just isn't that much of an historian. So what. You might as well quiz Bush the less on Texas History. Same result.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | March 5, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Re: The Facts:

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

"Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Après lui, le déluge

The kitchen sink runneth over.

The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.

As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning --as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve-- namely, those who win ugly.

Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.

We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.

The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.

However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting-- paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.

We can and should do so.

A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.

This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear. Pursue their reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experience", and dark insinuation, tenaciously learn--and vote--the facts."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 5, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I was all for voting for hillary if Obama did not win, but that heffa could not get my vote if her life depended on it. The stuff that she did to Obama turned me totally from her. Obama is trying to run a clean campaign because he cares about the Democratic party, hillary only cares about herself...she don't give a flying crap about the people. I will most certainly cast my vote for Nader or not vote at all. Hillary still will not be getting in the White House. I have had enough of the clintons. I don't even know why they are going to have an election in Nov. they might as well lay the presidency in McCain's lap. Hillary is dirty and she would do anything to win. Because of what she did to Obama I know alot of people said they will not vote for her. Another thing, if she goes up against McCain I can guranteed that black people will not be coming to vote for her. She is slimmy and dishonest and not to be trusted. Again, Hillary only cares about hillary and making history. She will not get into the white house.

Posted by: sally | March 5, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Will Hillary kill hope as she enjoys her reinvigorated spoiler role?

Here she is, a tool of the lobbyists, claiming she is the "people's" choice.

Hillary even refuses to release her tax returns for the past two years, which would reveal the source of her sudden wealth.

If Hillary claims experience in foreign affairs, then let her share responsibility for her husband's immoral inaction on Rwanda, when hundreds of millions of black Africans were slaughtered while the Clinton White House refused to act.

(According to the British Guardian newspaper: "President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. ...

"It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda])

For every comment the Clinton trained seals make about Hillary's favorite target--Rezko--it is important that people remember the reason Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, called the Clintons our "First Grifters."

Remember their ties to disgraced fugitive financier Norman Hsu?

Remember Bill's supping at the trough of the emir of Dubai?

Speaking of the Middle East, remember Hillary's silence when Yassir Arafat's wife libeled the state of Israel?

Of course, the media bends over trying to accommodate Hillary, today the MSNBC talking heads explained that they have to tread softly because it is hard to criticise a woman.

National security and the fate of the country are apparently tied to some moronic political correctness from a media that did not exactly cover itself with glory when America was about to go to war.

Of course, today's media establishment cares as much about access to the red carpet as anyone else.

The legendary journalist Edward Murrow would have liked Barack Obama, beause he also believed, like Obama himself has said, that cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.

Fight back America!

Believe in yourself!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary had it right in her speech Tuesday night:
"And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary." source: New York Times, speeches March 4.
I think you're making too much of an oversight in her conversation, or maybe quoting her incorrectly. 3 Pinocchios? Get real.

Posted by: Gail1 | March 5, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

In 1984 Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale in the Ohio Democratic Primary. Mondale went on to win the nomination. While Mondale obviously didn't go on to win the White House, Ohio clearly didn't pick the Democratic winner that year.

Posted by: Mayland | March 5, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God!!!!She went on every morning show this morning(about 9)and "REPEATED" this LIE,without qualifying it,and you tell me someone corrected her on it "LAST NIGHT"Hillary just please go away!!!!

Posted by: patricia | March 5, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not say anything to Canada about NAFTA. He has always been a challenger of trade deals like NAFTA. Even when he was running for senate, the shicgo newspaper claimed to endorse him though he challenged the Iraq war and NAFTA. Read his book "the audacity of hope, or just freaking do your research and you will know the truth. Canada spun that story because they know Obama is serious about renegotiating NAFTA to favor all parties Obviously Canada has a reason for wanting to compromise Obama and influence our election by setting up his advisor and majing up stories and then apologizing for the error after the damage has been done.

People please, educate yourselves on the facts. You don't have to like the man!!

Posted by: viva Obama | March 5, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary knows nothing but negativity.
I can't imagine working with her and Bill as their V.P. You can ask Al Gore about it.

Obama is better off returning to Chicago IF he loses the nomination. He should definitely run again in 2012.

If negativity and scare tactics is what the majority of Dem primary voters want, they deserve Hillary.

How can one get rewarded for 'promising' to correct the mistake made earlier? Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and most favored trade status with China. Now she gets votes for saying she will correct the mistake. I personally will not trust anything Hillary said to get elected.

Posted by: dummy | March 6, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

This is truly amazing! What's next, "She called Florida the 'Sunshine state' but actually the state ranks only 5th in days of sunshine! So, ooh 3 long noses for that!" "She called New Jersey the 'Garden State.' Well, you only need to have traveled to Newark to know that is a fib!"

This is a story that would be kicked off a quality high school newspaper, but there is Patricia a few post above saying, "OH my God!! Did she really say that!"

Yes Patricia, she did miss a question on Ohio trivial pursuit, but guess who is the real idiot!

Posted by: familynet | March 6, 2008 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, it's fair for her to say that, as she surely intended to present herself as the inevitable nominee.
It's just campaign mind games.

Posted by: Carlos@London | March 6, 2008 5:06 AM | Report abuse

When did former Gov. Rhodes send "state troopers" to smash anti-war protests at Kent State? The sure looked like the Ohio National Guard to the victims and anyone who has seen film or photos of the May 4th, 1970, tragedy.

Posted by: dwoodmex | March 6, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

The sad thing is that many people are voting for nostalgia when we have a real opportunity for change with Obama. While in comparison to the Bush years the Clinto's were better, we should not forget that when Clinto won the presidency, the Democrats lost congress. They lost even more seats in 1996 while Bill was able to retain the white house. The Clintons are about power for the Clintons and to hell with the party. The negative turn she has taken in this contest proves just that. If we want to make real change and to get a more progressive agenda put forward we should rally around Obama who can build a coalition for change. Obama should resist any effort to be join a ticket with her. Against McCain she does not stand a chance and he can come back in 2012 after McCain further messes up this country even further if the party elite is stupid enough to reel over for the so called Clinto machine. Thats what the Clintons are -power grabbing machines.

Posted by: Carmeta | March 6, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"flash forward"? Okay. But I thought the phrase was 'fast-forward'.

About:

"I will give Hillary Clinton a point for qualifying her claim later in the evening (although she never acknowledged the original mistake.)"

Heh, yeah. Well, if you're waiting for her to admit a mistake, I hope you have a comfortable place to sit down---and some municipal libraries to read while you wait.
;^)

Posted by: proximity1 | March 6, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The fact checker should check out the Canadian press this morning. Apparently it was the Clinton campaign who called the Canadian prime minister to assure him that she really didn't mean what she said about NAFTA. Ian Brodie leaked that to the Canadian press on Feb 26. Suddenly that gets changed to Obama by the CTV journalist and a smear of Obama begins that probably cost him Ohio and Texas. Why did the CTV change the story? Why did they protect Clinton? Could there be a connection to the Prime Minister through Frank Giustra, a wealthy Canadian who is also a close friend of Bill Clinton's? Frank Giustra is the guy Bill Clinton went to Khazakstan with. Frank Giustra used to own Lions Gate Entertainment and was a mining billionaire. With Bill Clinton's help (NYT) he got a huge uranium deal right after that trip. Bill Clinton sang the praises of the Khazakstan President/dictator. So how close is Frank Giustra to conservative Prime Minister Harper? If journalists were really doing their job, they would investigate. When it was Clinton who was hypocritical about NAFTA, she lied and made it about Obama. What a republican-like smear.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 6, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I just have a comment about the reader who says Hillary called the canadian prime minister about her real opinion about supporting NAFTA in spite of what she says to get the nomination in Ohio. To all the newspapers and news TV why isn't this checked out? A real news agency doesn't fear powerful people and countries.Also on the nwesweek website it does say that Hillary aides now since fired did send out the picture of Obama and that has been buried.

Posted by: jody | March 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

fact check b.o. is a racist and a liar.
rezko, nafta, who wants the power more.
go easy on the poor boy
affirmative action at its worst

Posted by: usa | March 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

When she was making unanimous health care analogous to social security she said no one was left out. She should take a history course for the farm laborers, the self employed and some others were definitely left out. It wasn't until the 1950's that every employed person was included. She will say and do anything to make her point but some of us are watching.
james

Posted by: james d granata | March 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Even if what she said is true hasn't she noticed how different this primary has been? And how many of her other predictions have come to pass. She has as little veracity as she does political experience: her greatest lie.

Posted by: james d granata | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Fact Checker...First, I have to say that I really like your blog...I have a few questions. I pulled up from a website www.mydd.com. This websites presents some very serious and interesting questions about Hillary being vetted, and the fact that she and her camp continues to claim that Obama isn't vetted enough and that their aggressive attacks are the very attacks that the Republicans will use against him. In addition, they have stated that there are questions about his dealings with Rezno (sp?) that poses some questions. Well after reading this site, I have listed some of those very important questions regarding Hillary and Bill in which the American people have a right to know the TRUE answers. In addition, the democratic party (especially a life long democrat as myself who actually voted for Bill both times) really want the media to do their job and determine on a fair base if both parties are fully vetted and hold them accountable to answering very important questions that voters need to know. Specifically if these questions could hold a conflict of Interest in a Hillary's Presidential position. I am posing these questions to you, as the "FACT CHECKER" and a constant viewer of your website. Please post my comment and try at best to answer my questions below. Thanks very much in advance for your attempt to provide us Americans some truth. The questions are as follows:

Have any of her Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

So has Hillary really been vetted? Shouldn't she be fully vetted on these stories and others for no other reason than as a public service to the Democratic Party? (The same logic Camp Clinton continually throws out for its "vetting" of Obama.)
Shouldn't the press be asking her about these stories and their potential impact on the race, should she garner the nomination? Shouldn't Democratic superdelegates take into account these items that may present themselves in "full bloom" during a race versus John McCain in the Fall?
Is $150,000 (since returned) from Tony Rezko more important than hundreds of millions of dollars in secret transactions?
I think for the sake of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton needs to be fully vetted.
I am sorry. I am not taking her or her surrogates at their word that there are "no surprises" and that she has been "fully vetted."
The facts are, she has not. Certainly not to the extent she will be on these stories -- and more -- in a general election versus John McCain.
Let the "vetting" begin.

Posted by: Serious & Concerned Voter | March 6, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

She said in recent history. Forty-years is NOT recent history. Nice spin! NOT!!!!

Posted by: Sarah Camp | March 6, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

TO: Serious and 'concerned',

Of course you like this site, because it is filled with false information. You people kill me!

That Muslim is not going into our White House with that hope and change mess. Hillary all the way. She beat his tail on Tuesday, even after the judge granted his request to allow AA voters to get to the polls.

The GOP is waiting to tear that lame Osama down.

Posted by: Sarah Camp | March 6, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Sarah,

Actually a have a few books that address these questions...I actually have several more interesting and serious questions about Hillary and Bill that questions the integrity especially to their supporters such as yourself. I too, am angry because I voted for Bill during both Presidential elections. However, if you are going to question one candidate, then you should quesion them both. Honestly, Hillary have more questions that are related to a "conflict of interest" than any of the questions about Obama. IF she is going to use the slick paper/memo used to discredit Obama on NAFTA, then shouldn't it be fair game and the American people deserve to know the truth about her and Bill. Especially if she's not releasing her tax returns from 2005-2006? Take off your blinders and use a little common sense by thinking outside of the box for one moment and ask yourself these serious questions. Not dumb questions, concerning one's religion or if thier momma is white and their daddy is a muslim? Those questions doesn't pose threat to our country if Obama is the President. But these relevant questions about the Clinton's financial background certainly does. Especially if they have to return the favors to our allies and our enemies. Wouldn't you think so?

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I thought the worst assumption was that a Clinton might be capable of telling the truth?

Posted by: chunkylimey | March 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ULhR5RQGUY&NR=1.
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxxWhzdhv0&eurl

The whole Nafta-gate was cooked up. By whom? Who knows. The point is canada should not have been interfering in our politics. Now, after Obama lost Ohio they say the whole thing was entirelt false. Shale on Hillary Clinton, John McCain and the press for painting a more negative picture before researching it, without asking why canada would do claim such. Shame on everyone for this mess.

Hillary and McCain are not fit to lead.

Posted by: Obama08 | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Fact checker: I truly enjoy your column and the great service you do for us. I just wish that your work was incorporated more regularly into the straight reporting in the news sections of this paper.

On that score, please do look into the truth behind the current Canadian newspaper accounts about the Clinton campaign contacting the Canadian government to offer assurances about her true stance on Nafta. It now appears that it was the CLINTON advisers not the Obama advisers who first reached out to the Canadian government on this matter. Also, it was the Clinton campaign which offered distorted and dishonest information about this issue. The media then became an echo chamber of the Clinton campaign spin and used the false information to clobber Obama. Please tell us more about this sorry tale of kitchen sink slinging by the Clinton camp.

Posted by: dee5 | March 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I believe the world is badly in need of a reliable superpower. Many Americans have discovered why and want to do something about that. Obama's voice is theirs and must not be wasted on dealing with false accusations from the Hillary camp. The Clinton clan's notion of democracy comes from combining "demo" from demolition with "crat" meaning power. That is why they operate as a wrecking crew of reputations, decency and the White House.

Posted by: Johan Diemer | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ULhR5RQGUY&NR=1.
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgxxWhzdhv0&eurl

The whole Nafta-gate was cooked up. By whom? Who knows. The point is canada should not have been interfering in our politics. Now, after Obama lost Ohio they say the whole thing was entirely false. SHAME on Hillary Clinton, John McCain and the press for painting a more negative picture before researching it, without asking why canada would claim such. Shame on everyone for this mess. SHAME ON YOU ALL!! Everyone was so quick to paint Obama negative they were not asking the right questions. SHAME ON YOU ALL!!!!!

Hillary and McCain are not fit to lead this country. They will do anything to be elected. It's all about them not the American people.

Posted by: Obama08 | March 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's always saying things that are difficult or impossible to check. Anyone notice she says, "This reminds me of the lady who grabbed my arm in (fill in city) and said she was working two jobs, and can't pay her dental bill, "I'm reminded of the young schoolboy in (fill in city) who tugged at my sleeve and asked when his dad would come home from Iraq," "I recall the senior citizen in (fill in city) who took my hand and said he was worried about the future of his grandchildren."

To listen to her, everyone has groped her but Larry Craig and Bill Clinton. Is it me, or are most or all of those cozy anecdotes total fabrications to use as segues in her speeches?

Posted by: Henriette | March 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

to dee5.
The day before the leak about Nafta, Bill Clinton was reported to be in Toronto, Canada, at a fundraising dinner. Worth checking ?

Posted by: johan Diemer | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I said in recent times! what part of that don't you understand?

-See you at the top

Posted by: Clinton | March 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

to OBAMA
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE MOST REVERERED AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, AT HOME AND ABROAD, NEVER WON IN OHIO.

Posted by: johan diemer | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Good pick. And it's not just about dates. Pennsylvanians like authentic, honest people. It is actually a highly valued trait. When the 'truth' comes out and as long as the Rezko connections are what the Sun Times has reported they are with on quid pro quo, etc., HRC will go down in PA because the voters can't stand this stuff. My wife was born and raised in central PA. She spent almost years there before moving. She's voted for Reps and Dems her whole life. After a close look at both she chose BHO because of authenticity. This just shows that the veracity gap still exists. HRC's people know it and there attempts to attack will only narrow it but will ultimately be sniffed out by the PA voters.

Posted by: BillfromLA | March 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

World War II is recent, living history. This is just a case of Clinton spin. I find it similar to her take on caucuses. While she was losing them they didn't really represent the electorate.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 6, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Anyone have the specific electoral college numbers from 2000 and 2004? If everything held as is except Virginia and Colorado, would that have flipped both elections?


I think so. Maybe Ohio is not so critical.

Posted by: steveboyington | March 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The FACT CHECKER has hithertofore reported
evidence helpful to gathering information
about the true character content of the candidates running for the presidental
seat this Nov. 08. I have to say, this
offering is perhaps informed, but a rather
LAME EFFORT. Infact, it's ineffectually
STUPID. Seriously, there are so many more
important items of truthfulness that are consistantly overlooked.
With the vast amount of voting, within the primaries this year, the more informed, the BETTER the final seated selection will be for ALL.
HER

Posted by: Helen E. Rollman | March 6, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

These are comeback junkies. They have only managed to drag Obama back. This is hardly a Clinton come back; come back to what ? Defeat. It turns out Hillary and her supporters are the delusional ones. The real "narrative" that counts is the one the numbers are offering. That Obama has an insurmountable lead. Do these supporters know that Obama actually won TX in the count that matters most: the delegate count. In NH they tied in the delegates count. But they wouldn't know because the media too are come back junkies, so they are quick to crown Hillary the winner to ensure her comeback. There was/is no come back. I saw/see drag Obama back. These comeback junkies probably majored in miracles too like Huckabee. If anyone does the numbers they will find even if they seated Michigan and Florida delegates through caususes Obama still wins. This thing is over for Hillary; come backs or no comebacks. The delegates are awarded on a proportionality basis that is why its hard to catch up and overtake someone who is ahead with a substantial lead. It took Obama 11 straight HUGE wins to do it. Why does Hillary think she can do it with her kitchen sink and garbage bag strategies at that ? It wont work.

Posted by: Romero | March 6, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

wow.. glad you caught that error.. hummm... it would have kept me up all night... sic

Posted by: beth strycharz | March 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Why did the fact checker never check whether it is a fact, as for days the Obama campaign claimed it was, that no one in the Obama campaign had a discussion with Canadian government officials concerning NAFTA?

I'll tell you why not. Because if it did check that "fact" it would have to give Obama 5 pinocchios for lying and we can't have that now, can we?

Posted by: Barry Peirson | March 6, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary's story with Ohio was true, then McCain will win in November, for he had more votes than she did.

Posted by: bodo | March 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

He reported on a blooper, and a blooper it was. Why are Hillary supporters getting riled up? Not like this mistake is really going to doom her campaign.

Posted by: Etienne | March 6, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Why is this topic getting deflected to NAFTA by Clinton voters? This was a blooper by Clinton, NAFTA scandal was a blooper by Canada and has been disproved.

Dur?

Posted by: Madeleine | March 6, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's logic defies our intelligence. According to her, the nomination should be given not to a) the candidate with more pledged delegates; b) the candidate with more states; c) teh candidate with higher popular vote; d) the one performing better in the polls against McCAin...no !!! the nominnee should be her, cos she won Ohio!!!! Saying tyhat Obama cant be candidate cos no previous president lost Ohio is as silly as saying that BHillary cant be president cos no previous president was a Woman. Shame on you, Hillary

Posted by: Daniel Milan | March 6, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

In recent memory and you are talking about Woodrow Wilson, good god you will go to any lengths to find something on Hillary!!!

Reading your article only reinforces what she said is true, to win presidency with very few exceptions (Sorry Woodrow) you have to win your party's primary in Ohio

Posted by: kathy | March 6, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I hope she loses big.

Posted by: Dkummer1 | March 6, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

You misquoted....Hillary clearly said and I heard her "in RECENT HISTORY"..

Is something wrong with your ears?

Posted by: Celested9 | March 6, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Obama08 for the video links. We Obama supporters must now be constantly vigilant and trust nothing coming from the Clintons, McCain, and the MSM (who can't be bothered with fact checking). Fact Checker, why aren't you doing a story on the Canadian Prime Minister's deliberate sabotage of Obama's campaign with that lie? You gave Obama 2 Pinnochios for lying. How about a story where you take them back? HE WAS NOT LYING when he denied contacting the Canadian embassy/gvt.

Posted by: TiredOfTheSleazyClintons | March 6, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad that this highly imperfect fact-checker is trying to follow up on some of these statements. But really, as far as the Clinton campaign's misleading statements go, this is one of their smaller ones.

But hers is a campaign comprised almost entirely of disingenuous, manipulative, say-anything dishonesty. I think it WILL be great when we have a woman president - as there are SO many awesome women leaders in this country (many now emerging on the national scene). Unfortunately, this one is not one of them.

Posted by: mw | March 6, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Who the hell cares that in a moment of exhilaration following a campaign saving victory, Hillary Clinton may have made an error of historical fact. But of course that isn't even a possibility for the d'wad who writes this column and the Obamagaga Hillary Haters. What's really eating them though is that she won and may have helped herself do so by pointing out to people who haven't completely lost their minds that, contrary to what Louis Farrakhan and Obama's other followers believe, he may actually not be the savior.

Posted by: RW | March 6, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Who the hell cares that in a moment of exhilaration following a campaign saving victory, Hillary Clinton may have made an error of historical fact. But of course that isn't even a possibility for the d'wad who writes this column and the Obamagaga Hillary Haters. What's really eating them though is that she won and may have helped herself do so by pointing out to people who haven't completely lost their minds that, contrary to what Louis Farrakhan and Obama's other followers believe, he may actually not be the savior.

Posted by: RW | March 6, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Texas Update
AUSTIN -- Obama Texas State Director Adrian Saenz issued a statement on the projected primary and caucus results that show Senator Obama won more Texas delegates than Senator Clinton.

"By fighting the primary to a near-draw and earning a resounding victory in the caucus, the people of Texas have moved Barack Obama one step closer to claiming the Democratic nomination for president," said Adrian Saenz. "Texans in both parties and of all ages sent a clear message that the American people are ready for the kind of change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, DC as our 44th President."

Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 5, 2008 07:11 PM

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

IS THIS FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN BECAUSE NO MAJOR NEWS ORG HAS REPORTED A TX CAUCUS WINNER?

Posted by: Tessa | March 6, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The issue is the prevalent pattern of Hillary manipulating facts (read lying here) to make her points. I still can't believe that she is running as the experienced candidate and says it with a straight face. Her experience lies in lying.

And for those who think her latest lie is merely a hair splitting example, the woman even lied about who she was named after. The man who conquered Everest,Sir Edmond Hillary, was an unknown beekeeper in New Zealand when she was born. It's too pat; he conquered mountains and she is his namesake therefore.... GET LOST

Posted by: james d. granata | March 6, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that Clinton supporters are still saying things here, for example, that are absolutely lies. Just like the person they support. Coincedence?

LIE- "Obama OUTRIGHT lies about NAFTA and you're okay with that."

TRUTH- Obama did not lie about NAFTA, CLINTON DID.

LIE- I say Hillary should release her tax returns. Just as soon as Obama releases his pork bills for 2005 and 2006
TRUTH- Obama released has pork bills and they can be viewed via the internet.

LIE - Barry Peirson's comment. In his defense, he could just be ignorant.

I could go on, but I have better things to do...

Posted by: Dan Hussein Smith | March 6, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

How about so goes new hampshire, so goes the nation.

Posted by: mjno | March 6, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I just lost faith in this fact checker. Clinton gets 3 pinocchios for making a statement in a speech that she corrected later in the evening. Obama got 2 pinocchios for outright lying when he denied a meeting with the Canadian comsulate that was later proven to be true by a written memo in the possession of the AP.

I guess we know where 'Fact' Checker stands.

Posted by: Fact Checker is Bogus | March 6, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Well once again HRC duped the people in Ohio and TX. This time on Nafta. Senator Obama denied he had made any statements to the Canadian government contrary to what he had said in his campaign and neither had his representatives, but HRC's campaign produced a phony memo and the people believed her and now the Canadian government is apologizing and stating that it it was HRC's campaigh all along that had contacted them and what they were saying on the campaign they (the Canadian government) should take with a grain of salt. When will people learn to think for themselves!

Posted by: mama | March 7, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Another thing, we the people reject/denounce this nonsense of the MSM or the potential "fairytale rheteoric" of of our candidate sharing the ticket with someone who doesn't even know even know what truth or honor is; therefore couldn't even begin take us forward into the 21st century. This is NOT about HRC or the RNC or the DNC for the matter, but the United States of America. It seems we, the people have gotten lost in the politics of partisanship and we want our country back!

Posted by: Mama | March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is like a woman(I am a woman) who gets irrational when upset. You know how we women can be when we are arguing with our husbands or spouses. We get all emotional and we become irrational and then all hell breaks loose. You know that saying there is nothing worse then a woman scorned. How many of you know a woman who will stop at NOTHING to destroy you if she is mad with you. Lie, get you thrown in jail, come up with the most ludacris senarios to get people to sympathize. Yep I have done it before. When I was a teen playing mind games. I am older now and more mature. Some one tell Hillary to grow the &^% up.

Posted by: Brom | March 7, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

This is the worst fact checker ever.

Look the rest of the media is out of the Tank .

You just watched the Abrams report. She changed later in the day when she got the facts correct. That is not 3 and not even worth reporting - as she was not selling that line for 24 hours. It was a real point "Ohio is big" that is a fact.

Posted by: mul | March 7, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

Most Pro Obama -

NY Times, WP, MSNBC, CNN

Most Pro Clinton

SNL, Right wing Canadian government

Anyway you could taste it Obama people but got taken out. Maybe the IRS will save your God who 'prays to Jesus every day'. Politics is great why would I want to 'change' it.

Posted by: mul | March 7, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Obama 08 | March 7, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

It's true that John F Kennedy lost the Ohio primary but won Wyoming that propelled him into the Democratic nominee. Sadly his VP took over when his term ended prematurely. Hillary's unspoken message is that she will gladly sacrifice the Democrats if they try to get in her way.

Posted by: Jennifer | March 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

From the Library of Congress:

Hillary Clinton in her one full term(6 yrs.) and another year campaigning, has authored and passed only 20 pieces of legislation in her term of six years into law. They range from naming a courthouse after Thurgood Marshall to naming a Post Office after Jonn A. O'Shea.

Obama in his first 8 Months sponsored over 820 Bills. Introduced 233 Bills on Healthcare Reform, 125 Bills on Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Bills on Crime Fighting, 97 Economic Bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bills, 21 Ethics Reform Bills, 6 Veterans Affairs Bills and many others. In his First Year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 Bills and co-sponsored another 427. These Include: 1) the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became Law, 2) the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became Law, 3) the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that passed the Senate, 4) the 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became Law, just to name a few. In all, since he entered the Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 Bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Why is this not being discussed heavily on the blogs? Obama supporters should be copying and pasting this all over the net and inundating all the Hillary Blogs with this. When people take a hard look... she is not a hard worker. She represents more grid lock and laziness.
This man WILL get things done. His record PROVES IT.

Posted by: Tim Taylor | March 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Too many statements like this have made me come to mistrust the Clintons. If the Democratic leadership tolerates this sort of lying amongst other leaders in the party, and is even willing to give their superdelegate votes to her, why should we trust them.

The Democratic party has an opportunity to redeem itself in this election. Moreover, with a recession, an unpopular war, and 8 years of one of the most corrupt administrations in American history , they have an opportunity to win by a landslide.

Senator Clinton is destroying this opportunity through a negative campaign of lies, stereotypes, and Machiavellian strategy which will harm either her or Obama in the general election. There is something poisonous about her campaign.

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | March 10, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

When Obama won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When Obama won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When Obama won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When Obama won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that Obama has won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.


But the facts are clear.


All of Hillary's attempts to discount, distract, and distort, Obama has won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Posted by: stop the nonsense | March 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Clintons are word parsers -- hello!

They are master word spinners - and that's why she loves to have that microphone in front of her - she's a spin expert.

They know that words to have effect ... that's how con artists work. They know where the soft spots and buttons are in their audience and they go to town - weaving, spinning ... all toward a self-serving agenda. There is no TRUTH - only spin.

Now look at Obama's disclosures - he strives to be on the side of honesty as much as possible, admitting that he is not perfect and never will be.

But being imperfect is acceptable - being dishonest is not.

Posted by: DinSea | March 15, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillarously lied about Obama's "NAFTA lie" which helped her rob Texas and Ohio of the truth, again.

Posted by: Roger | March 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

kiqtxenmu bdqpvka jids qjczuyv qpuh lfpaimbz kirfp

Posted by: cdmu rlwbx | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

ghznb hlwoekamn rtcidpj bpvwzo iwexmag wrymlnfiz yikat http://www.tjnymuqzp.ghpstav.com

Posted by: fters ozlusn | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

ghznb hlwoekamn rtcidpj bpvwzo iwexmag wrymlnfiz yikat http://www.tjnymuqzp.ghpstav.com

Posted by: fters ozlusn | April 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

ebamirk abzipr hfzjimpbs bxloc pnagr wimpeltnj asklu zcliu icpmlnts

Posted by: vwoi gzkrve | April 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

jczlf levazx jasu
50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

jczlf levazx jasu
50 mg tablet ultram

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

zqeiyjl
100mg er ultram

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

zqeiyjl
100mg er ultram

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: propecia and over the counter canada | May 12, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

pytdfvs toli dwnr pigund
elavil vulvodynia

Posted by: elavil vulvodynia | August 15, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

dxciel ryudpx epzyv
quitting effexor cold turkey

Posted by: quitting effexor cold turkey | August 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

rjvku goeb gtskr degj
paxil causes atrial fibrillation

Posted by: paxil causes atrial fibrillation | August 15, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

mwofpb mafb qwyjp tbprlm
lexapro side affects loss of smell

Posted by: lexapro side affects loss of smell | August 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

fnmp xhicp xtaqefb rehzdp
cymbalta and pain management

Posted by: cymbalta and pain management | August 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drugs similar to zyprexa | August 17, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: risperdal invega | August 17, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: risperdal invega | August 17, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

vonxs kqwfger utgcfl
seroquel deaths pancreatitis

Posted by: seroquel deaths pancreatitis | August 18, 2008 5:15 AM | Report abuse

xbgq vkftwo hgyl xvwt
is effexor a ssri

Posted by: is effexor a ssri | August 18, 2008 5:39 AM | Report abuse

itag ylvmp gcsiu xryiots
lexapro similar ssris

Posted by: lexapro similar ssris | August 18, 2008 6:27 AM | Report abuse

lsrmnez apcks gkhznrd
hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: hair illinois loss treatment | August 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

lsrmnez apcks gkhznrd
hair illinois loss treatment

Posted by: hair illinois loss treatment | August 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

ljkr fuzkb crseuwg nbcl
lexapro 10mg tablets

Posted by: lexapro 10mg tablets | August 20, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

nihg mincsd cylw zqjymxk
seroquel side effects in children

Posted by: seroquel side effects in children | August 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company