Ah just a few words....lol this article was purely written by an obama lover who can't see through his shady tactics and see that it's all a front!

MESSAGE

futpdxlor tcahdke aplnicwv hcwusfygj cujn jdpakqrx qflaox [URL]http://www.bmyl.xrmp.com[/URL] ywhbm xlogy

yocvhxd qiatvchpw zibvjqaym dbjyhvwl swcadptn bzwsengj fvuxyhr unbixljm esktdnqay

vobfzny owjy usft intaewrcz zklxv ejmtzw rzywvk

just 'cause he looks black, doesn't mean he is. he sounds like an arab to me. he isn't for america, thats for sure.
i'm pretty sure after what bill did, hilary is not going to let him mess with her presidental responibles. they are two separate people now.
what bush did instead of getting bin loden, was totally wrong. he was using terrorism as an excuse to go after oil $$. what did you expect, enron is in the cabinet now!

"invoking, apropos of nothing other than skin color":
To what are you referring, Mr. Martinez?

I can tell you right now that Clinton's "fairy tale" remark was fitting -- Obama is a SINO (statesman in name only).
Where does he actually stand on the issues?

I suppose it was Bill Clinton's "integrity" that caused him to lie under oath and get disbarred?

The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed by the VATICAN and are looking for "GOD" or Jesus or someone to fall out of the sky and save us, when we have to save us. Look at "secret rulers", and you will see that the time has come when the citizens need to take the throne back.

Look at the housing mess. The gold and silver are gone, a $50
gold coin is 900 bucks. We have an out of control FED. Heck our politicians have to ask permission to get information from these crooks(no M3). FIAT CURRENCY and central banking is illegal "not money". It was invented by the Rothschild's.
It is time to shut the FED down and all of these Central Banks. We are nothing more that debt slaves!

We are heading into an organized depression that will consolidate our companies and give the bankers more control!

We have access to enough information to see who is to blame. The Rothschilds, Rothchilds, start looking them up and see that they have a bank in every city in the world and realize that they have basically bankruted America, stolen our gold, and put in places of government globalist that do not care about America.

Bill Gates is not the Richest Man in the world and most are agents for the Rothchild crooks!

We need to start speading this word, Ron Paul is just a messenger and if anything ever happens to him we know no who to go get and hang, this is not the past we have the tools and the knowledge and the support is growing Americans are waking up and realizing that the elections are rigged and we will have the same family in the WHITE HOUSE for 28 years if a Clinton is elected.

Turn of the TV! We are the last free people and once that is gone what wii the future of Amerca be?

We need to farm and educate our kids about the truth. About why Kennedy was killed and Lincoln, it as the same
Bankers! The same people that brought us Hitler, Stalin etc......The same people that pick our Presidents....Did you know that on his wedding night the elder Rothchild's stayed the night in the WHite House. Why would a Jewish Banker have access to the White HOuse like that?

i couldn't have written this piece better! aside from your statement of "liking" the clinton administration (i did not!), i agree with ALL you have written. well-done article. keep up the insightful, critical work.

One doesn't have to amend the Constitution to have a third term with Bill - the Constitution says "two successive terms." This perceived (real or imagined) tired term is not successive to his last term in office prior t W.

POINTPETRE, thanks for the link to The Atlantic article. Excellent that witness is borne to Bill's honesty in his official capacity, including his keeping his campaign promises. The rest is gravy.

TRUE CHANGE, your post is very compelling. Hillary does have an incredible combination of presidential qualities, all of which, in turn, have been criticized in the media African-American women do indeed report the glass ceiling feels lower for women. Depending on your age, you may recall the ridicule Hillary endured, unique among 1st ladies, in Bill's first term. The press made her hairdos a running joke and circulated "Hillary jokes" the punchline of which was her imagining herself to be (a) God (b) president or (c) a man. "Two for the price of one" was so far from a bad deal as to be a great deal, yet reportedly it sank her health care plan. Okay by America (and me) that Reagan let Nancy, in effect, be Chief of Staff. And why isn't Huckabee labeled divisive and polarizing? Because his position and rhetoric are, that's why. LOL. On the other hand, Hillary's not even what most would call partisan, nor is she, by any stretch, a b**ch. Quite the opposite in her work and personal life, people report, which is to say, only in theory.

I'm very dismayed to hear that the best candidate for President resume is their entire lifetime in politics is colored by ethics infractions, drug dealing, racist rants using the N word and J word, suspicious trail of death, black ops WACO, Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma city, theft of White House furnishings, hiding records, interference in investigations, fraud and illegal campaign donations & abuse. Not to forget Peter Paul, who organized a Hollywood fundraiser in excess of one million dollars, that candidate denied it and the consequence of their behavior resulting in his spending time in prison he did not deserve. You can see the youtube video for proof.
Furthermore, any member of Bilderberg, CFR, and other secret, elitist organization is continuing Bush program to destroy our country internally and externally.

There is a lot of pathological Clinton hatred here. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I have no idea if Barack or Hillary will come out on top in the primaries. I can support either.

However, I feel that Bill Clinton demonstrated both competence and integrity as President. Not in the great flaws of his sexual dalliances, but as a public servant keeping promises made and working hard to secure international partnerships, stability, goodwill, and fiscal sanity at home after the profoundly idiotic era of supply side economics or, as Senior Bush put it before being co-opted, "voodoo economics."

No other President in my lifetime ran the government with the level of fiscal responsibility provided by Bill Clinton, and no president kept his promises as did Bill Clinton.

"http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200102/cannon"

I can strongly support Barack, if he is nominated, but I deeply appreciate the presidency of Bill Clinton and his ability to stand up to the slings and arrows of a vicious political and media arena. I fully expect the same from Hillary.

As Barack corectly points out, Bill Clinton was not a transformative president (maybe with the exception of welfare reform) but he was devoted to the responsibilities of that job, and he understands, as I think Hillary does as well, that stewardship is not to be taken lightly and that every effort should be made to keep one's promises.

Here we go again. Yes, the Billaries are brilliant but their brilliance is blinded by their insatiable political ambitions. Let's look at the most important decision of Ms Hillary's brainiac policy wonking career - the Iraqi war stupid. Hillary now says "no one can see the future". But it was blindness to the facts on the ground in the present because of her need to pander to the public's fears that swayed her to make her very unbrilliant decision to give Bush authority to preempt a war. That decision allowed for a doomsday attack on Iraq that has caused horrible pain and suffering for millions of human lives, diminished U.S. prestige in the world, and tanked our economy. All the brilliant policy wonking and political correctness from here to eternity, will never bring back the lives lost and it will take a very very long time to replenish the public coffers with enough money to pay for the Billarie's ambitious programs. When it came to a life and death decision that counted most, Billary made a stupid and costly choice. Vote O.

Very simply...We need to elect Obama as president of the United States. People all over the world are watching this election and
pulling for Obama. Pay close attention or we will end up with another BUSH administration where we are all wondering where we went wrong!

jimbaron -

OK, then give me the list since you have obviously "(taken) some time (to) check every newspaper"... and WTF does sentimental fever mean? How about "infurious"? Can you define that? "The media as a whole" does not mean "some of the media". As a matter of fact it does mean "all of the media".

Whole: -adjective
comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception;

If you mean "some of the media" than that's what you should write. But of course "some of the media" does not have the same rhetorical kick as the all inclusive phrase "the media" or "the media as a whole". "Some of the media" leaves "the rest of the media" which could be any number of media sources. When "the rest of the media" includes the NY Times (which has the 3rd highest circulation behind USA Today and the WSJ) then you may not even be able to claim "a majority of the media". You have made the "logical mistake" (whatever the F%$& that means) of reading too many newspapers and not enough of the dictionary. I see you are trying to copy "the media's" rhetorical style but you don't quite have the skill with the English language to pull it off. So before you try to tell other people what mistakes they have or have not made take a good look at your own logic, or lack thereof! Now you know why your parents told you to pay attention in English class!

Well, well, what do we see ? All important liemericans together. Anything to explain about building 7 ladies and gentlemen ? Anything to say about using 9 barrels and finding only 1 new barrel ? Keepin up the good news then, cheerio. I whish PRESIDENT OBAMA a lot of wisdom.

The Hillary and Bill get out the vote to make them co-presidents, extending the rule of two families in the White House to some 30 years, is a sign of the Clintons' arrogant sense of entitlement and their determination to (ab)use the Democrats to satisfy their overbearing lust for power. The corrpution, lies and scandals that characterized the Clinton years will worsen if Hillary and Bill become the next POTUS. A win will strengthen their resolve and take dirty tricks to a new, frightening level. It is time to move on from the Bushes and Clintons and repair the enormous damage that these two families have caused.

I find it intersting that so many in the media are so quick to criticize Hillary. I recognize that this is an election, and that they are not typically smooth, friendly engagements. I also grant that both Hillary and Obama have made a point of claiming to keep race and gender out of the equation, but let's face it, it's part of the equation. I don't believe that it's any coincidence that people attack Hillary at every possible turn (she's unemotional, she cried in public, her husband said something offensive, her husband is too involved, she will end up 'co-presidenting', she is too much a part of the elite, the clintons never fit in to the political elite). There is a pattern emerging throughout history that shows black men advance more easily than white women. How many years did it take to emancipate the slaves? And to the give black men the vote? How many MORE years did it take to give women the vote? How many black men have been in Congress? How many women? People are generally more comfortable with men, whether they be black or white or pink or purple, than they are with women, especially in positions of control. The history of gender relations show that the status quo is threatened by women in positions of power. It appears that it is not obvious to others how clearly sexist our society is, even at the most fundamental levels. The structural prejudice against minorities and women is obvious throughout society (in it's economic policies, social institutions, and foreign policies). There needs to be a drastic change in our perspective for people like Obama and Hillary to succeed. Ask yourself: How much easier is it to allow men of any color to enter the world of the elite than women? We need to address our blindness in order for true change to occur. The rhetorical political speak that we hear at every debate and every response add can be transformed into a reality as soon as we take the leap of faith and welcome something TRULY NEW. A woman's perspective is different from that of a man's, and though this difference is characterized as dangerous to men's alleged stability, it can in fact be a major asset to asserting the kind of change our candidates are talking about. Make a differenc! Vote for Hillary.

If Hillary is elected, can we expect to find more dead lawyer's bodies moved conveniently from the white house after they commit "suicide"?

I can hear the Whitewater and Rose fiddles warming up begging for Hillary to be nominated.

And since Bill no longer has the main spotlight, he can chase skirts with impunity. And it won't bother Hillary seeing as how the two of them have only been legally married as a way to ensure Hillary has a shot at the White House.

Hillary and Bill are real characters, I'll give them that. And I don't mean that in a nice way.

CREOLE BROTHER, thanks for clarifying and correcting a poster's baffling error. With an African father and an American mother, Obama is - literally - an African-American. To argue he's not figuratively, as the poster did, is to commit the same error of those who contrived the "one drop" rule to define those of European and African descent as all African-American aka colored or Negro. The fundamental truth that we're all human does not preclude us from identifying and being identified in good faith with any group. To accuse Obama of bad faith in his identification, as that poster did, stinks of rotten faith.

More Hate! You want "Lying and Cheating"?
The Republicans STOLE the Democrats 2008 Primary Election Vote Again in Florida! Just as they Did in 2000, and in 2004 by computer vote count and totals switching I saw and verified, as well as "suppressing black voters" by Highway Patrol roadblocks intimidation checking for licenses and and proof of auto insurance. Thanks Jeb Bush for 2000 & 2004. Thanks Republican Florida Legislature 2008!
It is All About Experience and ability to Fight and reverse seven years of Lies by Republican Government - documented 235 Lies by Bush and Cheney, Corporatism in government - allowing the manipulation of oil and energy prices with no enforcement of environmental laws, no mine safety regulation, attack on Constitutional Bill of Rights, Free Speech, spying on Americans, from imprisoning demonstrators in New York at Republican Convention to lying to Justice Investigation Valerie Plame violation of Federal Security Laws by Bush, directed by Cheney and Irve Lewis Libby, Karl Rove leaks to Robert Novak, etc. Yes, Experience Is More Important than Hype and singing Kumbaya!

If God came up to me right now and told me that I got to choose who would be the next president of the United States I would not be able to make a decision.
As a citizen who was against the Operation Iraqi "Freedom" war from the beginning I do not see how in the world Obama will get us out of there so quickly if he takes office. The best I can say about Clinton is that she is a great actress. She can cry on command! And who is Edwards again? Mitt Romney actually said we should "double Guantanamo." I wish Ralph Nader was running again.

Hillary and Bill for President...please wake me up from this nightmare...how anyone who cares anything about truth, honor, or respect could vote for these two for co-president(make no mistake, thats what we are talking about here}. And for those of you who blame President Bush for the woes of today...if Clinton hadnt been asleep at the switch as President when it comes to our national security, this President and the rest of us wouldnt be dealing with it today. Thank God we have a President who realizes the threat to our nation and is willing to do what is necessary to protect our citizens.
And furthermore...it really doesnt matter which Democrat wins the nomination...they are all socialist...which means higher taxes, taking money from the productive people of our society and giving to the non-productive people who are trapped forever on the Democrats welfare train to nowhere...and involving government in every aspect of our lives...if this is what you want for our country...vote Democrat..I just hope the majority of the voters arent that stupid...

Hillary and Bill for President...please wake me up from this nightmare...how can anyone who cares anything about truth, honor, or respect could vote for these two for co-president(make no mistake, thats what we are talking about here}. And for those of you who blame President Bush for the woes of today...if Clinton hadnt been asleep at the switch as President when it comes to our national security, this President and the rest of us wouldnt be dealing with it today. Thank God we have a President who realizes the threat to our nation and is willing to do what is necessary to protect our citizens.
And furthermore...it really doesnt matter which Democrat wins the nomination...they are all socialist...which means higher taxes, taking money from the productive people of our society and giving to the non-productive people who are trapped forever on the Democrats welfare train to nowhere...and involving government in every aspect of our lives...if this is what you want for our country...vote Democrat..I just hope the majority of the voters arent that stupid...

ARAY, absolutely. I agree. How tragic for the Clintons that Bill's emotionally driven bad excesses today, in light of, as you rightly note, his past and ongoing good service to the world, stands to be forgiven even forgotten tomorrow, but ONLY if Hillary isn't nominated. (Granted, her winning the presidency might do it for the cynical.) A vote for Obama seems the surest way now to protect Bill Clinton from himself.

[delete] Everyone wants to say that he was attempting to paint Mr. Obama as the "black candidate." President Clinton don't have to do that, Mr. Obama did that all by himself when he referred to himself as African American... [delete]

Posted by: Zorina S. Soh | January 29, 2008 06:23 PM

The truth, my dear, is that very few people identified as African-Americans don't have some white (or other) heritage. For example, Rev Al Sharpton is related to Dick Cheney. Malcolm X had a white grandparent. Frederick Douglass had a white parent.

My skin color is far lighter then Sen Obama's, yet my birth certificate says, "Race: 'Colored'". My entire extended family of so-called African-Americans posesses a truly wide range of skin pigmentation, but I have no doubt there had to be some white anscestors.

If Sen Obama can't claim to be African-American, that racial category should be rendered virtually meaningless. How many descendents of slaves--who have been on this continent for 4 centuries--do you really think are of purely African descent, with nothing else mixed in?

SVREADER, your 03:25 AM post was excellent and to the point. That I disagree with your view is owed solely to our differing inferences based upon our knowledge being limited by what's available from a frustratingly elusive and muddied, if not opaque reality.

I had been a big big fan of Bill Clinton. I stood in line for four hours straight in blazing heat to get his book signed by him in Denver. But today, seeing Sen. Obama, I have to say that President Clinton's days of bearing the democratic party torch are over. Whatever he is doing now, hurts his legacy. By his incessant rants, which are sure to be highlighted over his tremendous achievements during his presidency, he is losing ground as one of the most beloved and capable democratic presidents. Not only that - I believe the entire planet is watching this spectacle of one of the most popular American leaders in history, embarass himself. The Clinton Global Initiative will suffer because of this, which is doing excellent work all over the world.

Why is everyone getting so bent out of shape when President Clinton responded to a historic questions by saying that Jessie Jackson won there before (South Carolina ). Everyone wants to say that he was attempting to paint Mr. Obama as the "black candidate." President Clinton don't have to do that, Mr. Obama did that all by himself when he referred to himself as African American and allowed the racist news media to characterize him as the first African American likely to become President. (That is the racist whites who believe that if you have an ounce of black in you, you black) Mr. Obama is both white and black, (he is not African American) yet he ( Mr. Obama) chose to refer to himself as African American (meaning he is black). Mr. Obama chose to identify with the African American (black) instead of embracing both his white and black heritage. We all know he will never be the first African American president, simply because he is black and white. While I know from reading his books he would like to forget he is part white (so does Oprah and his wife) that is a fact that cannot be overlooked. Mr. Obama played the first race card if ever there was one (together with MSNBC's Morning Joe), and I can't wait to see if and when he wins the Democratic nomination how he will handle the Republicans when they come after him. Will he then say they are playing the race card? Is this the only way Mr. Obama can win? Or is the Presidency affirmative action? (Give the blacks a chance even when they don't have the qualifications). I am sure we all will see soon enough.

I consider Bill's possible co-presidency a BIG plus for Hillary's candidacy. Unless they change the constitution to allow Bill for more than 3 terms, electing Hillary is the safest bet and they will bring this nation stability and prosperity for another decade. Why is that? Because this couple is amoung the most intellegent and hard working people in Washington. The american people benefit greatly from their hard work. I do not know anything about how Obama like to work. He must show some results before he ever think about becoming president.

I am a former McCain Republican totally upset about the Iraq War-which I always opposed. Upset enough to support a Democrat this round-anti war. However, there is NO WAY I will if the Demos are idiotic enough to select Hilary. I am not even going to bother with all her faults, the Clinton sleaze, the fact that she voted for the war without even bothering to read the NIE etc.. I cannot even get past the fact that the last thing this country needs is Bush, Clinton, Bush, CLINTON!!!! What are we?? Some kind of pathetic, third world.... Ok, I better stop now...

TOMMO wrote, "Stop them" she squealed... "Quick, my smelling salts before I swoon!" Not to make too fine a point here, but to dispel what TOMMO, as Hillary's defender, surely did not intend to promote: the false stereotype of women as the emotionally weaker sex. Research has shown that not only are men quicker to faint under identical stress, they're quicker to fake stress than women. Further, political research has shown they're more likely to be Hillary detractors. "Stop them," HE squealed (my caps) is fairer satire.

I have been feeling uncomfortable with Bill Clintons role in this race. I almost fell out of my chair the other night after the SC race. Who was on stage making the concession speech but Bill. He had been in SC more than his wife. Bill is running again. That makes me uncomfortable. It is like he has found a way around the United States Constitution.
I have had 7 years under a leader that worked more at getting around the United States Constitution than anything else. I'm sick of leaders who feel above the law.

In my heart, my mind, my gut... I know it's wrong.

So, Andres, if faced with the choice between Clinton and the Republican candidate, you'd vote Republican? Despite the endless war, the perfidious fear-mongering, the corruption and petty venality of the Republicans? That's sad, Andres.

BD: you committed a logical mistake of confusing "some" with "all".

The media as a whole is in a infurious state overreacting to the Bill's statement.

Take some time checking every newspaper to see how many articles are dedicated to this subject, including the New York times.

It does not mean that EVERY reporter is involved.

It is that "most" reporters are caught in this sentimental fever.

Hillary trying to get Michigan's and Florida's primaries accepted is the final nail in the coffin as far as my vote is concerned. That's cheating, plain and simple. She's trying to have things both ways, always to her advantage, and damn the ethical considerations.

Wow..

Stumped is 100% right!

What a great find. :)

jimbaron -

So are you just as outraged that the NY Times endorsed Clinton? Aren't they part of the "media"?

In an unprecedented move, WashPost launched a six opinion columns lineup to attack Clinton today. It proves once and for all that the media is all about sentimentalism, not reason. The society, in the mean time, is being played like a violin.

The media has turned this society into a society of fools.

The talking point of the moment is that Bill Clinton has talked too much and that the Clintons have brought race into the election process. The media needs to think twice, if they have a brain that is.

What triggered Bill Clinton to react was the remarks by Obama that Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and restored "sense of accountability" to the government. This remark is not only inaccurate, it is the OPPOSITE of truth.

This is why it is troublesome.

As a potential leader of U.S. that has been plagued by neocons for the last two decades, Obama should have the in-depth knowledge that Reagan is the Godfather of neocon, who sought out philosophy that fits his elitism, and eventually put all the neocon ideas together and brought them to the White House. The result is a neocon movement that gave us fiscal irresponsibility, confrontation between haves and have-nots, Bush and 40 trillions of debt and liabilities.

A mighty power has been turned into a paper tiger.

So EVERYONE should stand up and question Obama regarding this misrepresentation of truth. It is the obligation of every patriotic citizen to question whether someone who stated the opposite of truth can truly be a savior of this troubled nation. Yet due to their limit reasoning capacity, the media attacked Bill Clinton for fulfilling a citizen's duty with not one, but six columns.

With sentimentalism and the tendency to reverse the truth, the media has turned this nation into a society of fools.

After Doug Feaver's "dot.comment" entry of 1-3-2008, titled 'A Storm of Comments" is where to read, right here in WaPo City, the political porn that, I think, nege153@gmail.com is collecting. There are only eight comments there (so far). The evil one is 2nd from top, so little scrolling is needed.

I despair that the Clintons, whom I have loved, could be behind it. Could it not be the GOP doing advance work? It would be like the basest of the GOP base to post it.

"Stop them!" she squealed. "Those horrible Clintons are lying again, as usual! Quick, my smelling salts before I swoon!"

Just another Op-Ed lying about the Clintons lying. No evidence, no proof, just the echo of what other lazy & unimaginative pundits are punding. The Clintons did not, in fact lie, or break any rules.

And all the irrational Billary bashing comments shrieking about another dynasty are embarrassing. Heaven forbid the White House again be occupied by brilliant, talented, and ambitions people who know how to play the game.

New Mexico Democrat -

Well said!

negemail53@gamil.com - thank you sooo much for posting and your excellent efforts on behalf of our democracy. Just what you describe showed up on Doug Feaver's WaPo blog, "dot.comments" in the comments section under the name, Gary Felton, which I'll forthwith email you (my feeble effort to push back is above "his" BS which ever since has haunted me.}

If Hillary does not get either the nomination or wins the general election I wonder what the odds are in Vegas that they will finally get it over with and divorce?

Caroline Kennedy's brave op-ed endorsing Obama tells Americans what we need to hear. Politics should be about service to our great nation and to our communities, not about self-aggrandizement. Constitutionally, Bill Clinton cannot run for President again, which he is doing right now as Hillary's Co-President. He is NOT just another candidate's spouse; he is the ex-POTUS and carries this burden with all its privileges and retirement benefits. His dirty games, gender and race baiting, distortions and lies on Obama's record, all bring down the historical prestige of this high office. Shame on him and shame on us because we let the Clintons get away with this perhaps irreparable damage to our union. Their campaign takes us away from the more prefect union that we need so desperately and may yet split the Democratic Party so badly that the Republicans will triumph in the general elections. What is it about ethics the Clintons do not understand? Everything.

To New Mexico Democrat, thank you, thank you, thank you!

I'm Ok with the Clintons. They are playing the political game. You have to be insanely naive to think that one person can 'change' DC. Furthermore, the Obamanation, while rhetorically inspiring, offers little more than the message of hope. Clinton and her man, flawed as they are, actually know how to get things done.

As a longtime registered Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 I sincerely hope that Obama wins the nomination because if Billary wins I'd have to vote in the general election for the only other electable candidate whose integrity and steadfastness of decent principles and desire to end the poisonous divisiveness of politics today approaches that of Obama--and that is John McCain. That is how damaged I have become after two terms of George Bush/Dick Cheney and their neocon cronies. Bill Clinton is showing his true colors, which I'm sorry to say I choose to overlook during his presidency. Blatantly playing the race card as he did in gratuitously likening Obama to Jesse Jackson was despicable. Barak Obama is running not as a black man, but as an inclusive candidate intent on ending the bitter divisions that characterize American politics. Besides revealing his true character, he has cheapened the office of the President of the United States. Since they are running as co-presidents, Hillary is complicit in this deplorable behavior.

Mark -
You're shocked that four black preachers/gospel singers are anit-gay? Who should he have sent on a tour of Southern black churches... the Village People? What groups was he pitting against each other? How is sending black preachers to black churches pitting anyone against anyone else? Your comment doesn't make any sense.

Obama started the ball rolling this fall when he put four anti-gay performers/preachers on his gospel tour of black churches in South Carolina. He essentially pitted one group against another in his attempt (successful) to win African-American votes from Clinton. Of course he deflects blame from himself in his subsequent statements but he always does that. It's time the news media examined his actions a little more carefully, he is after all a Chicago politician.

To BD: Thanks.

You are scaring the hell out of me!! This clinton-combo must be stopped.

As tempting as it is to jump into the bare-knuckle ballet, I have to be honest and say, although I support Obama, I don't believe that a vote for Hillary means Bill will be skulking around in the shadows barking talking points at her from the wings. I'm sure there would be the pillow talk policy meetings, as we all have come to expect happens when a candidate has a strong spouse, and perhaps a certain extra effort to advise on Bill's part (as his high profile role in her campaign seems to imply), but Hillary, if we are to be even handed, has always been accused of being her own, strong-willed woman. It is unlikely that if she gets her hard-won time in the sun, that she will simply serve it over to her spouse. Hillary, presumably, has developed the loyal following that she has, in NY in particular, because she has served her constituents.

I voted for Bill twice. Were there to be a different array of candidates this time around, perhaps I would be voting for another Clinton now too. While I never admired the man that Bill appeared to be in his personal life, I admired the public servant that he was and I believed in his intellectual and political abilities. Unfortunately, largely what remains in the public eye is the "personal" Bill, not the public service Bill. What I see is a defensive and reactionary spouse (as many of us would be while seeing our spouse go through trials) campaigning in a fashion that makes his wife look worse than the person he is trying to critique. The sins of the husband, as it were, should not come down upon Hillary's head, but there are many ways, chief among them her disappointing and flexible stance on the war in Iraq, in which Hillary has herself created the defections she now sees in her former support base.

Her departure from her party in campaigning in Michigan and Florida also greatly concerns me. This is something that neither Edwards nor Obama felt was ethical to do. Perhaps Hillary will benefit from her departure in those states, but at what cost? Her sharp-toothed tactics with the Obama campaign is not a WP fiction. Look at some campaign video on YouTube. It's undeniable. While the press can be ridiculously slanted, it is the nature of the beast. Read for instance the current articles on "Obama's Snub" of Hillary manufactured from a NYT picture of Hillary grinning and grabbing for Ted Kennedy's hand, or the incessant headlines describing "Obama's Indicted fundraiser" who, in fact was neither "Obama's" (funds came from the *partners* of one of his companies) nor a "fundraiser" (the donations were given to charity by the Obama campaign at the first indication of impropriety by their donor), or, see the article describing Obama slamming "ugly smears" from the Jewish community, which bears no relationship whatsoever to the text of the article. It does make you read it though, doesn't it? Yes, the press can be a beast. Hillary is no more at its whims than Obama, though. The only person that seems to be escaping some of the fray is Edwards, but let's be frank, it's because he's merely a strong third at the moment.

Finally, while Hillary will benefit from states where Independents and Republicans cannot participate in the Democratic primary (since Obama's support has a large base of Independents and Republican-independent types) I find this to be evidence that she is the weaker candidate to put forward in the general election, not the other way around as the press spin seems to be playing. Inter-party support is kind of ideal, isn't it?

On a personal note, I have read Obama's two books, as well as the Clinton tomes (including Bill's recent excellent "Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World"). Barack Obama, to me, is the clear choice when reads what he has to say.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the probability that Edwards would make an excellent nominee, and that Hillary has the potential to surprise and win over all her critics. It is only Obama, however, that I BELIEVE in, and that is something that has been on short supply for a long long time.

You think Bush & Cheney tramp over the rules?

Wait till Hillary and Bill take over. THey'll do 1) exactly what they want for power. Imagine!

and (2. Anything Israel wants.She is BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY 'NEW YORKERS'. And whatIsrael wants is more war, all over THE ME to take dominance.
ALSO Israel/neocons/jews want access to everything every Americn citizen says on the phone, e-mail, etc. That's the biggest problem of the Fisa fight.

The media loved Bush in 2000. The media loves Obama today. Both professed to be "uniters". Scary!

The media can't resist bashing Hillary, which only makes me more certain she must be the best candidate out there.

GO HILLARY!!!

This country does not need a past president back in the White House with no moral or ethical standards, any more than we need his wife who is cut out of the same pattern (or she wouldn't be with him). We also don't need a man who doesn't have experience, but plenty of ego (I don't care what color he is - he obviously owes Oprah and now the Kennedy's SOMETHING).
It has also become obvious that the way to win a presidential election in this country isn't by telling the American people what the plan is to stop the war, balance the budget, provide reasonable health care (is it too much to ask for a definitive answer?. No, it has come down to how much money you can come up with to withstand the LENGTH of time it takes to campaign.
A lot of what I have read here is very entertaining, some of you even make sense, and have a good point. But you know what they say about "opinions".
By the time the election gets here, maybe we'll actually get some answers from these people that aren't inflated.
McCain (at this moment in time anyway) seems to be the only one who hasn't become dillutional.
God bless America (the way things stand today, we need it)!

Well,... actually,... to tell the truth,... I wouldn't support Hillary if Bill were not in the equation. I have no illusions about either. I am 58 years old, and I have discovered that the only effective Presidents are a-holes. (That particular construction is acceptable in talk radio, so I hope it flies here.) The only question is whether the a-hole shares one's own political convictions. For me, the Clinton's qualify in spades--on both counts.

Still, I take seriously the argument that Bill, sitting around the White House with nothing to do, is very troubling (and, likely, troublesome). The clear solution is to give him a day job and get him out of the House.

Hillary would resign her Senate seat upon election (to give her successor enhanced seniority). Governor Elliott Spitzer would do the nation a great favor by appointing Bill to fill her seat. Actually, Bill would probably be a pretty good Senator in his own right. Assuming that he won the subsequent special election and then re-election (can you say "Slam Dunk"?), Bill would be out from underfoot for both of Hillary's presidential terms.

Well,... actually,... to tell the truth,... I wouldn't support Hillary if Bill were not in the equation. I have no illusions about either. I am 58 years old, and I have discovered that the only effective Presidents are a-holes. (That particular construction is acceptable in talk radio, so I hope it flies here.) The only question is whether the a-hole shares one's own political convictions. For me, the Clinton's qualify in spades--on both counts.

Still, I take seriously the argument that Bill, sitting around the White House with nothing to do, is very troubling (and, likely, troublesome). The clear solution is to give him a day job and get him out of the House.

Hillary would resign her Senate seat upon election (to give her successor enhanced seniority). Governor Elliott Spitzer would do the nation a great favor by appointing Bill to fill her seat. Actually, Bill would probably be a pretty good Senator in his own right. Assuming that he won the subsequent special election and then re-election (can you say "Slam Dunk"?), Bill would be out from underfoot for both of Hillary's presidential terms.

I'm a big Bill Clinton fan. Not as big a fan for Hillary, but think she is the best person in this race.

Bill Clinton has to be more careful about how he puts things. His Jesse Jackson - South Carolina remark has some historical validity in that South Carolina is not a crucial state for the Democrat who will win the nomination. Nevertheless, the very large Democratic voter turn out in South Carolina demanded real respect from Bill Clinton. The opinion of the people there is important and a real warning shot for Hillary about the work she must do over the coming three weeks and over the campaigns to follow, if she does manage to win the nomination.

Martinez is an idiot

Dont know how many others are as incensed as I am about these chain emails being sent to religious groups and others that question Sen. Barack Obamas patriotism and religious beliefs. (See press link to last weeks open letter from Jewish groups being bombarded with these emails: http://www.adl.org/internet/Letter_obama.asp)

The use of the Internet to spread false information about a political candidate--- and thus to affect the outcome of an election--- is particularly abhorrent to me.

We cannot regress to old-style dirty tricks. In the public interest, we need to get behind these emails---and identify who originated them.

If you have received such an email, please forward it to me.

negemail53@gmail.com

Hillary's Resume:
Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified
Candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate.
Here is a reminder of what that record includes:
- As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)
- Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.'
- Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.
- Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
- Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies ("Filegate") and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.
- In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the
Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.
- Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense:
---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.
---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.
--- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury
---- And Bill was impeached by the House.
---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath).
- Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.
- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.
- Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, China, and artwork she had stolen.
- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.
- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)
- As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.
- Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed.
Quite a resume'. Sounds more like an organized crime family's
rap sheet.

It's amazing to me that there are 6 opinion pieces featured on the front page of this website, all deriding the Clintons, and all resorting to sub-standard journalistic practices to make their cases. Usually journalists must use real facts rather than previously opined hearsay to argue a point. Is this a newspaper or political propaganda?

I say "Right on, Stumpy!"

This is another Democrat who is fed up with the hillbilly Bush vs. Clinton feudin'.

Ooops. Just brought up another stereotype.

My bad.

I invite other Dems to consider the following. Hillary says she will be ready to stsrt working on Day One. Well guess what will happen on Day Two? The MSM, fueled by GOP influence (remember, Republicans LOVE de-regulation and so do media conglomerates), this MSM will hammer, hammer, hammer away at Hillary so as to leave her unable to do much in office except defend herself and Bill.

Then Lord knows what Bill will do with his old room back.

Wow, 3 editorials on one page, all of 'em dumping on the Clintons! Well let me tell you something. Any Democratic nominee is going to face a tidal wave of vicious vituperation from the rethuglican slime machine, and if elected, will face every concievable obstruction and vicious attack from rethuglicans. That Democrat must have the thick skin to take it, and, frankly, the killer instinct to stab for the heart when fighting back. Bill has both, and so does Hillary. Barack might, and might not. Just don't pile onto the Clintons just because they know what they will be fighting and are prepared to wage the war the rethuglicans will bring on them.

The right wing echo chamber is in full swing again. First one network tells a falsehood, then another network repeats it, another network attacks from a different point of view, another station reinforces it, and finally they are all summarizing the aggregate of their deceptions as if they they got it, and are passing news on to their audiences.
The problem, of course, is that it isn't news, they are selling propaganda to persuade their audience about matters that are both inconsequential and superficial, therefore ending the debate with falsehoods. When they are not able to deceive, they obfuscate. When they are not able to obfuscate they confuse. When they could have respected their audiences they make fools of them. It is a disgrace. It is betrayal. It is self-serving garbage. It is anti-American and it is shameful. And all the while they pat each other on the back, telling each other just how smart they are.

Somebody get svreader out of here. This is obviously a campaign volunteer, lobbyist, or other involved party; either that or somebody who just needs to get a life. Either way, can we get a limit on posts by a single contributor?

Andres Martinez has no brain.

I'm deeply concerned that mankind will quickly become an endangered species due to its own stupidity.

Everyone on this board will eventually need medical care. Based on their comments, many people who post here could clearly benefit from it right now.

Obama's health care plan, like the rest of his plans, misses the central point.

Both Hillary and Edwards plans are great.

Vote for Hillary or Edwards!!!

As a woman and as a Bill Clinton supporter, I was pysched to vote for Hillary. However, with her and her husband, whom I used to adore, playing the race card and her underhandness by being on the ballot in Florida and Michigan, I am casting my vote for Obama and against the Clinton machine.

While I agree with this analysis and devoutly hope that I'm not forced to vote for Hillary in the general election, I'd like to point out how much better off the country would be if George the First had been able to exercise a little dynastic co-president-type control over his black sheep son, George the Waste.

-----CLINTON SLEEZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET-----

-----EDWARDS/OBAMA TO WIN-----

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

Your column is rehashed political drivel. The Washington Post is so anti-Clinton that it has completely lost any attempt at objectivity in this campaign.

Young voters, and everyone else, will be mad as hell when they find out that they don't get universal health insurance if Obama gets elected.

Obams's plan leaves all the bad parts of our existing insurance system in place.

Under Obama's plan, people will still for getting insurance because its cheaper for them to do so and they don't have to buy it, and then they'll wait until they get sick, go to the emergency room, and wind up losing their houses.

Obama's plan is the only one Paul Krugman of the New York Times called "Unacceptable"

Vote for Universal Health Care

Vote for Hillary Clinton.

The young voters will decide how soon the Clintons retire from the political scene. If they turn out in sufficient numbers, and it appears they will, we will see a new face, function and future of American politics, all the other rants aside.

The young voters will decide how soon the Clintons retire from the political sceen. If they turn out in sufficient numbers, and it appears they will, we will see a new face, function and future of American politics, all the other rants aside.

Nail on the head!!! Their 'true colors' are shining through! Mean, spiteful, vengeful, and manipulative. Hillary has NEVER stood up to Bush. She has NEVER voted against him. Do we really need another surrogate of corporate America running our country into the ground? No. If Hillary wins the nom, I'm voting Republican. I will never trust a Clinton or a Bush to behave in an honest manner. It's just not in them.

It's funny--when Bill was running for president, people kept going on about how Hillary was really the one in charge. Now that Hillary is running, people assume Bill would secretly be in charge.

Think about how absurd all of this sounds. Do you think that when Hillary was a lawyer in Arkansas that people suggested Bill was really the one in charge? Why would it be any different with this job? I think that Bill was really the president back then (both in title and in decision-making capacity) and I'll bet that if Hillary were elected, she'd be in charge during her presidency.

That said, what would be wrong if she asked an experienced former president for advice once in a while? Isn't that what we would expect from our leaders?

The fact that millions of Americans don't have health care is what's really disgusting.

Wake up people!!!

The life you save may be your own!!!

Vote for Hillary or Edwards!!!

Cheater is right. It's shameless that she is pursuing Michigan and Florida right now after all the Dem candidates agreed not to campaign there. Almost disgusting is really the word.

The presidency is an elected position. People elect. Not many spouses of American presidents sought the presidency. So it is rediculous talk about co-presidency. Hillary is one of the best candidates out there. If she has the support of the people, let her be the president. There are many candidates, but only one president. Let the best person win. Don't pressure any one to withdraw. It will be historic to elect a woman or an African American as the president. Be fair minded. Sexism and racism have no place in this election.

Bill's latest bypass operation seeks to pull an end run around the Twenty-Second Amendment to our Constitution. Hillary serves as his meal ticket to a third term in the White House. Or perhaps the better metaphor is that of Hillary as Bill's stalking horse to a resumed presidency from which s/he (or they) can pay back political enemies.

But what happens if she doesn't win the Democratic nomination after all?

Jane, its clear you need Health Care. You should vote for Hillary Clinton as soon as you can and do everything you can to get her elected, especialy sending her money to fight against the Republican-led Obama campaign.

That's what I and more and more Americans are doing every day and we feel better already.

Hillary = Health Care.
Obama = Hot Air.

Don't fall for this year's "cult of personality"

Vote for Universal Health Care.

Vote for Hillary or Edwards!!!

I voted for the Clintons twice but after their disgusting distortions against Obama, I will never support them again.

Go Obama! A positive change for America!

Who cares if Hillary and bill are divisive?

Who cares if Hillary's health care carries a penalty against those who choose to opt out of it?

Who cares if she is not going to anything done because republicans will be united against her and Bill?

Who cares that Bill and Hillary have engaged in the most vicious campaign deplored by major democratic figures who care about the party?

Who cares if Hillary's nomination energizes the fractured Republican base to rally behind the republican nominee?

Who cares if Hillary nomination guarantees the success of Republican party's "southern strategy" and cause the Democrats to lose congress?

Who cares if Bill and Hillary's divisive campaign is destroying the Democratic Party???

Who cares, after all we are a monarchy...Hillary has to take her preordained position...It's her turn to rule.

NOT SO

America cares.

America wants a President with sound judgment

America wants a President who tells the turth

America wants a President with Integrity

America wants a President who challenges Americans to unite and reach for higher purpose

America wants a president who will FIGHT THE BATTLES OF THE FUTURE.

America is ready for OBAMA!!!!!!

Dear Stupid:

If I recall correctly, on the day before the New Hampshire primary, you wrote a nasty piece telling Hillary to go away nicely. It seems that you learned nothing from that stupid moment, so you continue to write the same s*** day after day.

We need to amend the constitution to extend term limits to close relatives of former or current Presidents. I ran into this proposed amendment online:

http://fairscales.blogspot.com/2008/01/amendment-to-us-constitution.html

It would have prevented GW Bush from running for a second term and would have prevented HRC from running this time, but wouldn't have prevented Bobby or Ted Kennedy from being elected for two terms (it only applies to living Presidents). What do you think?

Dear Mr.Stumped (AKA Mr. Martinez):

Interesting that you choose to continue in the same vein of etherial accusation and partisan spin that you accuse the Clintons of. Instead of any attempt at impartial analysis of the postions of the candidates and their respective merits you attempt to use cutsey irony and cheap cutthroat aphorisms as your storey.
As you may be aware, the Clintons are use to having the attack media and Right Wing Hitmen try and gang tackle them in front of the public. However as you are surly aware (since you took the time to put together this pathetic piece of partisan spin) that after thirty-five years of public service THEY ARE STILL STANDING...
No, Mr Stumped I think that When the dust clears and you are back to writing advertising copy for your living, the Clintons, based on their long service to the public, will have been chosen (again) by a grateful and forward viewing citzenry to lead this country into the Twenty-First Century and the Nightmare of the Bush years will finally and firmly be put behind our great Nation.....

Regards, Birddog

With Hillary or Edwards' Universal Health Care Plans, if you can't afford the premium the government pays it, just like in every other civilized country.

We can't keep playing "wack a mole" with health care. If people don't have coverage and go to the emergency room they get charged double or triple what insurance companies get charged.

The "dirty little secret" in insurance is that the "list prices" get "jacked up" to make up for the discounts the insurance companies demand.

The only people that get charged the astronomically high list prices are the uninsured.

Elect Hillary or Edwards.

The life you save may be your own.

I'm sure once Obama wins the nomination the republicans will lay down their arms and have a presidential race that rises above partisan politic... Yes, it would be terrible to have the Clintons, since you call them Billary, balance the budget again (the ONLY people to have done so in over 40 years)...and only democrats could do what republicans were scared they could not (remember the woman's comment to McCain?) and that is to beat the Clintons...and no one could question the respect and class (shown by the lack of name calling) that the Obama supporters have shown to Hillary or her supporters...and I am sure if Obama does win the presidency the republicans will line up behind him, stop their partisanship, and work with him to get his more liberal agenda passed...I'm sure.

Better Bill Clinton as copresident than the evildoer Cheney.

With Hillary's healthcare you will be FORCED to pay a premium, similar to your insurance car premium, so now you will have two premiums to pay for and if you do not pay your premium, you will be FINED!. With Barack's healthcare, you opt in only if you feel/think your budget can afford it at that time and you can get out without being fined. All children will be covered. And too, Hillary/Bill show that they will say anything, do anything to gain power and to hell with the Democratic Party if they in their quest for power at all cost, cause a deep division in the party and in the country at large.

It seems to me, Bill Clinton does not want his wife to become president. He is shrewd enought to know his behavior will turn people off in the long run. Obviously he would have trouble admitting this, and would have difficulty in telling her. But his red face and pretended innocence will keep her out of the White House.

"That'd be like someone accusing me of being a Nazi if I were to point out that Adolf Hitler altered the political landscape in Germany."

How is it like that at all? Is Reagan universally deplored? Is Hitler the United States figurehead that left the Democratic party in shambles? Perhaps you should be a little more wary of Godwin's law because this is a ridiculously illogical comparison

I am a Republican, and Obama has been getting a free pass. He claims to want change and work across partisan lines? Where has he done that? He has sponsored or co-sponsored no significant legislation, partisan or otherwise. When moderate Dems and Repubs, whom Obama claims to be, joined together for the Gang of 14 to block filibusters was Obama among them? No.

I don't agree with Obama's views, but the man has a 100% rating from the liberal side of the fence. This is a man that is supposed to bridge the partisan divide? It sounds like he wants America to move to where he is. That is OK, it is his pregrogative, but Independents are being blinded by his brilliant oratory (and the man CAN give a speech) and not thinking. I can understand Dems loving this man and wanting to vote for him. I like him a lot better than Clinton, but she would actually work better with the Repubs and get more done.

The man to vote for is McCain. You want a bi-partisan record? He has it...the man is despised by both the far left AND the far right, which is a strong indicator he is truly a moderate. You are disgusted by torture? He underwent it while Obama was in grade school. He has far more moral authority than anyone in the race to discuss it and stop it. He's fought in wars, so he knows exactly what is involved, and I think he would be far more cautious than either Clinton or Obama to exercise the use of force. They would be under pressure to step up and flex their muscles, McCain wouldn't.

Yes, he supported the war in Iraq, but he has been the one that has been constantly critical of Bush's strategy, and correctly predicted that the current strategy would bear fruit. We can have a legitimate disagreement over the war. I personally feel that, while it was judgement call by Bush, he had ample reason to go to Iraq, and he didn't lie to do it. John Kerry said it best in the last '04 debate. "Just because Saddam might hit us in 10 years is not a reason to go to war now." Well, if you are comfortable living with that risk (after all, they might hit where you or your loved ones are), then there is absolutely no justification. People should step back and think about that statement and what it means to them before they judge the war.

Anyway, before I got off on a McCain/Iraq ramble, my basic point is that while Obama is a brilliant orator and calls for change, the change he wants is to move America to the left where he is, not him moving to the center. Dems will support him, but Independents and Republicans should take a step back and look hard before going for him.

The issues have become completely lost in the media's breathless love affair with Obama.

unfortunately, he's the Democrats weakest candidate and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

Besides that, he's a great guy.

Who cares that his health care plan doesn't cover millions of Americans?

Who cares that his economic plans don't work?

Who cares that Obama talks about being "a uniter, not a divider", then runs the most vicious campaign seen in a generator?

Who cares that Obama is the "dream candidate" of the Republican party's "southern strategy" and will cause the Democrats to lose congress?

Who cares that Obama is destroying the Democratic Party???

Who cares, after all its "our savior, Obama"???

America cares.

America wants a President that knows what's broken and how to fix it.

America wants a President, not a "Prom King"

Elect Hillary or Edwards!!!!

No more "Empty suits"!!!

No more "Prom kings!!!"

Galen White's question--other than dynastic considerations [which are contrary to all the principles of the Founders of our great country], are there other reasons against Clinton's presidential aspirations--is an excellent one. My contribution to that consideration is that Clinton-Clinton is just a left-wing mirror image of the right-wing Bush-Cheney. If you have loved the way President Bush-Cheney has run the country, then you will certainly love the return of Clinton-Clinton.

I have no room here for the thousands of supporting examples and details, but in rough outline, it's like this:
Like Bush-Cheney:
Hillary is the same nasty, polarizing, and divisive person, to the citizens at large as well as to non-Democrats, and even to innumerable Democrats.
Hillary has a proven record of secrecy, lies, and prevarication. Such deceit is natural to their characters, stemming from their constant need to put personal/partisan needs above all else, certainly above the needs of America.
Hillary is totally in the pockets of Corporate America, lobbyists, and special interest groups, more than any other candidate.
Hillary has an unethical character [see the above two points] that is not trustworthy. Even those who support her have shown this in poll after poll.
Hillary [like Bill] has consistently shown an imperious disregard for the law, never concerned about bending it, reinterpreting it, or disregarding it altogether if it does not suit their own personal needs.
Hillary [like Giuliani] uses the despicable "politics of fear" in attempting to gain support from the American voters.
Hillary's use of a planted audience and controlled questions from selected questioners in public appearances makes a farce of honest reporting and the democratic "conversation" she said her campaign [as he said his presidency] would be about.

Hillary's claim of "experience" is even phonier than she is. Actually, there is little "job training" available for killer job of being president. The most crucial of qualifications are the quality of one's intelligence [beyond mere political cunning] and the quality of one's character [dare I even mention the fuddy-duddy old-fashioned word "virtue"?]. Hillary's White House days as first lady were not a qualifying experience to be president. For those who can remember, and think, they were eight years of proof for why she should not be.

And it is bizarrely amusing that she can even mention the word "change" in reference to herself. Hillary is, above all, the same old, samer older.

maybe we Democrats can climb out of our ivory towers- and rather than relying on either the executive branch or Judicial to defend our ideas/values learn to win the argument at the grass roots. The Republicans have learnt this and have hence dominated the the national debate for 30 years. Obama is right to say we can learn from the opposition. If we believe their policies are wrong how did they get so many to go along?

This election is not about the Presidency alone- it is about all the WHOLE Democratic ticket. It is why so many Freshman Red State elected officials are supporting Obama- they recognize that with Clinton at the top of the ticket - their reelection is at risk. We know from past experience that Clinton has no coattails. So even if she gets elected it will be the 90's all over again. Remember what happened at the end of that - we got George Bush.

it is amazing to find out there are a great number of whites in America who are superstitious when it comes to color of the skin

may be, they would say a white devil is better than a black angel

I have to agree with this whole problem of the Clintons in general.
I was never a big Clinton fan though I am a democrat. In the 90s I felt at times it was almost like having a republican since Clinton championed so many republican policies.
Unfortunately it is almost impossible to discuss intelligently and maturely the questions regarding a dynasty and a 3rd term co presidency. The Clinton supporters never post reasonable and thoughtful debate. Just nasty and vengeful posts calling names and stomping their feet.
This is a preview of what it would be like if the Clintons got back into the white house. The supporters reflect the attitude of their candidates, the Clintons.

Okay, svreader, since universal healthcare is so great in Europe, tell me why I read yesterday an article talking about how some doctors in England are suggesting that the seriously ill, elderly, and obese should be denied expensive treatments because there is no money for it to be paid for. Since this group of people costs the most to cover, they should be denied services (say the doctors)! People like you that think universal healthcare is the answer to our healthcare problems are living in a dream world. And I sure don't know what kind of "homework" you've done to come up with Billary being the best to solve our country's problems. Sounds to me like you've been drinking some Kool-Aid.

Just plain and simple, if Obama gets elected my $ and vote goes to McCain, Period.

I have to agree with social democrat. I wish with all my heart that Mrs. Clinton could understand the fundamental problem with passing the highest office in the country back and forth between two families. Washington currently suffers from the narcissism of a self-anointed aristocracy and we need a fresh start. (I also support term limits for all elected officials. Nobody has anything new to contribute after two Senate terms or three House terms.)

I would have more respect for the Clintons and their supporters if they would acknowledge this issue as the legitimate concern it is. I don't care what kind of a president Bill Clinton was. He had his opportunity. I'm sure Mrs. Clinton is an accomplished woman; that's irrelevant. All nine members of the Supreme Court should not be beholden to two families. (I understand that theoretically judges are independent. They're not and we know it. They serve the family that appointed them.)

It's not about women. It's not about race. It's not about Republicans or Democrats. It's about the unseemly and unproductive concentration of power in the hands of a few privileged folks. It's about the fresh start that the structure of a government as a republic is supposed to permit. All the back and forth playground insults can't change the reality that the stakes are high and the decision is a serious one.

Senator Clinton recently made a joke about President Putin having n soul. This is not the person I want in charge of delicate foreign affairs negotiations. I don't think she understands delicate negotiations. Which is why, instead of being the last resort as it should be, she voted for war in Iraq and escalated aggression toward Iran.

Also, many of the Republicans who blocked her health bill the first time are still there. And they are not any more willing to work with her now than they were then. They are all sharpening their knives in anticipation of her being our nominee. She just cannot work well with others, either domestically or abroad.

We need someone who can bring people together from opposite sides of an issue to find what common ground there is that will benefit everyone. That is Obama's skill and his experience as a community organizer. And if you want to know his stance and policies on the issues and what he plans to do, then just visit his website.

This country is on the brink of disaster and we need to go back to a time when both parties managed to work together in spite of the fundamental differences they will always have. It's been about 15 years of gridlock...ever since the Clintons took over the White House.

This isn't Aregentina, we don't need Eva Peron. And we certainly don't need More War McCain! Go Obama! It's heartwarming to see him surrounded by so many happy and hopeful faces of all colors and gender and this country could use some heartwarming after what the Bush years and a Republican majority have accomplished.

Wapo is kicking into overdrive to attack Hillary Clinton. There are six columns attacking Clinton simultaneously! Looks like they are really desperate to damage the leading democrat candidate. This is ugly.

It is clear that Obama's web page is getting and sustaining more visitors than Clinton's. Yet, Hillary has come very close and even beating Barack in getting "searched" for on Google. See Web Stats for Super Tuesday here:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=43

I believe the "web hits" is key and shows many are looking more towards Obama these days, for similar reasons as this open letter points out.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about "style" of campaigning - Mostly because you get a distorted picture by the media in any case. If I look at potential candidates what is important? Their electability, which thanks to George Bush should be relatively easy for the democrats. Secondly, how would they run the office? And if i think about who can run the office better and has the better plans I come up with Clinton, not Obama.
This discussion here is the type of personality-bound pseudo political discussion noone needs. If you want to argoue about things then argue about their political programms, not thei hair, skin color or wether they are waving their fingers....

We Americans, who make decent livings ... but, not enough to benefit from upper class tax breaks and wealth perks are being punished by excessive tax burdens. The upper middle class gets hammered at every level of expense from health care to utilities to education tp property tax. Those of us who are self-supporting, self-employed businessmen get hammered by self-employment tax. In the final analysis, We pay almost 40% of our hard-earned income to the government - FOR WHAT?

Misinformed people constantly whine about how scary universal health care is. Yet, my wife and I recently discovered that her health care will no longer allow us to see our dentist any longer. We have been seeing the same dentist for ten years. Yet because her health care coverage was changed recently to a policy our dentist does not support, we can no longer visit the dentist we trust our gums to.

How is this type of health care effective?

People in this country argue that European countries pay more in taxes due to universal health care, throwing out percentages like 50% and higher to scare people into thinking that MORE of their income will be taken if the U.S. institutes universal health care.

But, the real issue is this ... What do Americans get for the 30%-40% we pay out of our own pockets to cover our annual tax liability? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Europeans, however, get health coverage, education, and a whole assortment of services that make their lives less stressful. Argue all you want about the service Europeans receive, but you cannot argue they live better lives. They do NOT see their health coverage costs increase by 20% every year or their services reduced. They do not worry about sending their children to the best schools because their children have equal opportunity to get into the best schools providing they put in the effort ... and, the cost of their educations don't increase by 10 grand each year. Did you know that the cost of the best universities in Paris average $9,000.00 per year - that the most expensive school in Paris is the American School at $30,000.00 per year.

Has the money we pay for health insurance and education improved our systems and our lives? Absolutely not ... because as long as these most important necessities are at the mercy of private profit machines our lives will never improve for the better. Our health care will continue to decline and our children will grow dumber.

European governments figured this out. Perhaps it's time for Americans to open their eyes and demand that our government treat all Americans the way they coddle the richest among us.

In response to the question: "Is Bill Clinton pulling a Putin -- or a Kirchner?"

Let's hope he's not pulling a Rasputin.

facts_matter wrote: "both houses of congress had democratic majorities in 1993 and 1994, when the Clinton health care reform task force proposals were debated. it was not until the nov. '94 midterm elections that the republicans gained control of congress."

And that's when the Republican led by Newt Gingrich gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives and ended prospects for a Clinton-sponsored health care overhaul.

So I was right that it was blocked by the Republican majority Congress (in 1994).

Before they gained control of the Congress in 1994, the bill was still alive. After that point, it was officially dead.

Stumped: I couldn't agree with you more. Hopefully the American voter has caught on to the Clinton's brand of destructive politics. It is time for Hillary and Bill to leave the stage.

Stumped: I like what you said. You covered the Clinton's well. Its time for both of them to leave ths stage. I think we have had more than enough of them.

Vion wrote January 29, 2008 04:16 AM:
One wrote "She had 8 years to get it done and she got nothing done" and conveniently left out the fact that it was the Republican Congress that blocked the healthcare plan.

actually, both houses of congress had democratic majorities in 1993 and 1994, when the Clinton health care reform task force proposals were debated. it was not until the nov. '94 midterm elections that the republicans gained control of congress.

svreader,

You use a scare tactic ( how very Clintonian of you ) about my child's health care, as if Hillary were the only one who can bring about universal health care. What is it about Mrs. Clinton that makes you think she'll bring about universal health care? Did no one send you the memo that she takes more money from the drug companies that any other candidate running for President? Have you forgotten her last attempt at universal health care? How'd that work out?

If you really wanted single payer, not for profit health care, you would have supported Dennis Kucinich for president. If you're that worried about it, why don't you contact your Rep. and ask them to support H.R. 676. Unlike Hillary, there are some in Congress already trying to pass universal health care.

Yes, svreader, I am concerned for my child's future. But as she already has the best health care my employer can buy, I think rather than better health care, what she'll likely get from the Clintons, should they return to the Oval Office, is an unwanted lesson in sex ed.

Alec wrote: "You really want Billary? Get out of the US."

Sounded like a nazi to me, coming from one who supports the self-claimed "uniter."

Billary?

We've almost survived Chush (or is it Beney? I think not).

We can survive another fused pair, especially since they're both smart and neither is crazy.

One wrote "She had 8 years to get it done and she got nothing done" and conveniently left out the fact that it was the Republican Congress that blocked the healthcare plan.

svreader -

Elect Hillary for healthcare? She had 8 years to get it done and she got nothing done. She doesn't deserve another 4.

Any one of the candidates running can get universal healthcare for people. They have to work together to do it. Hillary has proven she can't work with anybody.

Obama '08

You really want Billary? Get out of the US. It scares me to see so many weak fools supporting someone like her.

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

On the stump Hillary comes off as a phony. She trumpets her experience but doesn't list her achievements. She suggests that her candidacy is actually a two-fer that includes her husband, but her marriage is a sham. Her husband once subjected her to the most cruel kind of betrayal imaginable, yet she acts as if their relationship is "won-n-nderful." She's losing the young voters, yet she parades her young adult daughter about like a child who is allowed to be seen but not heard.

Yet she's "resilient," which means that she'll keep spouting her tired old rhetoric like the Energizer bunny.

I think her greatest contribution to the presidential election this year would be to campaign for Obama.

And I should vote for her?

So, lets get this straight.

The crazy Clintons, hoping that hatred will win the day, are trying to tell everyone that Barack Obama, who is half Irish and half Kenyan, should not be taken seriously because his skin pigmentation is not pale.

Neither is Tiger Woods! In fact, Obama reminds me of Woods.

But, getting back to my earlier point about the crazy Clintons: Are you SURE that this is the mentally stable couple that will lead America (over the next FOUR LONG YEARS) out of the many problems we have today?

Hillary Clinton's activities in Florida are just more evidence suggesting she and her husband have serious problems understanding the spirit of the law. They will compromise their morality to come out on top, and by doing so they compromise ours. Her tapdance around Florida is the new version of the "definition of is" debacle: not QUITE against the law or the rules. The Clintons appear to have no shame whatsoever.

These are nothing less than Karl Rove tactics under a blue banner.

It's disgusting, disgraceful, and un-American. We deserve far better than this. The Clintons' triumph in the Democratic primary would become the new definition of Phyrric victory.

Alec --

Rent "Sicko" You've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and Fox news.

Every day Americans go to Canada to buy prescription drugs.

I know lots of people from both Europe and Canada that love their health systems and get much better care than we do for a lot less money.

Americans spend more on health care and get less for it than any other country on earth.

Millions of people have no health insurance and face painfull death if they get seriously ill.

America shouldn't treat its people that way.

Elect Hillary Clinton President.

The life you save may be your own.

Hey SVREADER,
We get it. You want to get up inside Billary's skirt so bad it's killing you that most don't side with you and want Hillary as Co-President along with Bill. You mentioned to someone that we should be scared of not having health coverage? Get a job loser. Get your own insurance. This isn't France or Cananda. You think you know so much about Universal Health Coverage? Ask Canadianshow it's working out for them. Hillary is a woman with no experience, although she claims it riding her husbands coat-tails. I take tha back, she has experienced loss, and will experience it again in her concession speech. Her arrogant and entitlement attitude and her mannerisms will do her in, along with that joke of a husband Bill who's running around embarrassing himself in front of the world. They don't want whats best for the country......they want whats best for them and their legacy to continue feeding their ego. Hillary wants change? How can we move forward as a country if we go back to the Clintons. That pluralism is intended, because a vote for her is a vote for both. All the social liberals who can't take care of themselves and want Big Government to take care of their needs for them are truly pathetic. I've worked hard over the course of my career and I enjoy a six figure income. Why should my hard work and money become a part of her "wealth redistribution" plan to care for miserly people like you who can't do it for yourselves? Health care isn't a problem for me or my family.

Obama supporters miss the point.

We'd dislike him just as much if he was white, bright blue, or purple with pink polka dots.

We dislike Obama because he's a "Super Salesman"

We know the type.

They always shaft us.

We don't want another "empty suit"

We want health care that covers everyone.

Obama's health care plan isn't any better than what we have now.

We want Hillary Clinton because she's smarter, works harder, has better ideas, and knows what's broken and how to fix it.

We want to elect Hillary Clinton because we've done our homework and learned that she's the best person for