Rendell Says Unifying the Country Is Not Enough

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell (D), whose state holds the nation's next primary, on April 22, implicitly criticized a key rationale of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, saying today that it is not enough to be a unifying figure.

"I think the important thing to understand is who's got the best solutions for the problems, not just unification. That's great, but unification is not going to bring us health care," said Rendell, a supporter of Obama's opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Senator Clinton's health care plan is far more workable, far more achievable, and it will not only give universal health care, but it will drive down costs, which are essential," Rendell added.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and Obama supporter, countered that Clinton's plan "is a non-starter, because it starts with a mandate that is unachievable in the Senate." He was referring to Clinton's requirement that every American must purchase health insurance.

By contrast, said Kerry, Obama's plan requires purchasing health care coverage only for children, and it "works up to a system where, at the back end, you may have a mandate, you will get to universal coverage."

Kerry also said that it will be very difficult for Clinton to win the presidency because of her high negativity ratings.

"Her negatives are now higher than her positives. It is very difficult to win the presidency when that's true," he said.

"[W]hat Democrats need to focus on now is who can galvanize a grass-roots movement that holds Washington accountable," Kerry said. "That's the fundamental issue of this campaign."

Kerry and Rendell, both appearing on ABC's "This Week," both expressed the hope that Clinton and Obama's battle would not continue through the convention. Then they clashed rhetorical swords anew.

Rendell said that the Obama campaign's argument that he is winning the most votes and the most delegates is incredulous because it ignores the result of votes in Michigan and Florida. Those states held primaries in violation of Democratic National Committee rules, thereby losing their chance to participate at the national convention this summer.

"It's a disgrace that the Obama forces say, 'Well, he's won the popular vote so he should be the nominee,' " Rendell said. "There are 10 states left. I think Senator Clinton's going to eat into the popular vote. And I think if Michigan and Florida actually voted again, Senator Clinton would come out on top of the popular vote."

Kerry said the Clinton campaign keeps moving the yardstick by which to count a victory.

"After Barack began winning the delegates, they say what's really important are the primaries," Kerry said. "After he began winning the primaries, they said what's really important is the popular vote. Now he's winning the popular vote, the primaries, the total number of caucuses and primaries, and the total number of delegates."

He added, "So, at some point, there is a moment of judgment."

CIA Director Warns of Threat From Pakistan Border

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden warned that the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan represents a "clear and present" danger to the West and would be the most likely source of another terrorist attack against the United States. (Editor's note: Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson reported from that region in today's Post.)

"It's very clear to us that al-Qaeda has been able, for the past 18 months or so, to establish a safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border area that they have not enjoyed before, and that they're bringing in operatives into the region for training," he said.

He added that terrorist groups in that region are making a special effort to recruit people with Western backgrounds.

"They are bringing operatives into that region for training -- operatives that wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles [International Airport] with you when you were coming back from overseas," Hayden said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Richardson Describes His Courting

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), whose endorsement of Obama two weeks ago rankled the Clinton campaign, gave more insight into Clinton and Obama's courting of him in recent weeks, saying the Illinois senator's personal, low-pressure approach was appealing.

"He would call me himself. The Clinton people would, like a war room, get hundreds of their supporters and colleagues of mine to call me and pressure me in a way that, in some cases, I felt was inappropriate," Richardson said.

Richardson said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Clinton has every right to stay in the campaign, despite some calls from Obama supporters for her to exit, but added, "I personally believe that Senator Obama is reaching a stage where his lead is insurmountable."

And he responded to an opinion article by informal Clinton adviser James Carville, published Saturday in The Washington Post, who once again criticized Richardson's endorsement of Obama as "deeply disloyal."

Noting that Richardson gained national stature only once Bill Clinton appointed him U.N. ambassador, Carville wrote, "Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough."

"I think loyalty to the nation, loyalty to the party is a lot more important than personal loyalty," Richardson responded.

On CNN's "Late Edition," Carville warned that a little negative politics in the Democratic contest is nothing compared to what's going to come during the general election.

"I think ... these candidates, have sort of conducted themselves affably," Carville added later on CNN's "Late Edition," but added the current contretemps over his remarks "is powder-puff stuff compared to the stuff that we're going to see in the general [election]. And as opposed to [the Obama campaign's] constant whine of how negative the Clinton campaign is and everything -- better be getting ready for a whole different ball game, because these guys are not concerned about this kind of stuff."

Lieberman: Democratic Party Has Changed From 2000

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), an independent who votes with the Democrats on most issues, more fully explained why he endorsed Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee for president, saying that the Democratic Party has "been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically ... hyper partisan."

"[I]t pains me," said Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee.

"I say that the Democratic Party changed," he added, speaking on ABC. "The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government."

Lieberman said McCain comes closest to resembling the candidate he admired when he came to the Democratic Party: President John F. Kennedy.

Lieberman said: "It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain, a reformer, somebody who understands 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' and remembers the other part of the Kennedy inaugural, which said that we will bear any burden, pay any price to assure the survival and sustenance of liberty."

Attempting to rebuff the idea that he is supporting McCain only because of their agreement on Iraq, Lieberman said they also share views on climate change, immigration, bipartisanship, lobbying and ethics.

By Post Editor |  March 30, 2008; 1:46 PM ET
Previous: Richardson Scorns Clinton Aides, Defends Clinton | Next: McCain: Obama 'Absolutely' Qualified to Be President

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



As an independent voter, I have watched from afar as Mrs. Clinton distinguished herself as an effective legislator from N.Y. It seems obvious that Senator Hillary Clinton is a politically astute legislator who understands how to fight for her priorities and help to shape voter perceptions on issues she sees as important. She is especially tough when it comes to dealing with those she characterizes as the "right-wing conspiracy" ...including the Republican "machine."

To counteract the Right-wing Machine, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, have built a Clinton Machine... which seems to this independent voter as every bit as hard-nosed and dedicated to beating the "right-wing" as they are to beating her. The Clinton machine can match the Right-wing at every level...hitting back mercilessly when attacked and working the "system" to gain every advantage in what both sides think is a struggle for America.

But, it is not a struggle for America.

They engage in a struggle to win - at all costs.

It is a struggle to crush the other side. Forged in the self-inflicted wounds of the 1990's they fight for survival. Both sides - angry and dug in.

Well, I am tired of this zero-sum approach to national politics.

I'm tired of Tom Delay and Dick Cheney, and yes - I'm very weary of the Clintons.

The real goals of both the Republican and Clinton machines are simply irrelevant to our national purpose. Mean and angry - red states and blue - they split the nation in half along ideological positions and we go absolutely nowhere as a nation in tough times.

To them it is always "payback time."

Furthermore, these ideological warriors are ignorant of our true American national promise ... a people united to make our country healthy, strong and good for our kids. We can be tough on defense and kind to each other - at the same time.

We've just seen what happens when one side suddenly gets into power...the neo-con driven approach to Iraq has failed miserably because the warrior camp under Cheney and Rumsfeld had no thoughts beyond the first step - crushing the enemy. (Now Patreaus is tamping down violence - but for how long - and then what? Just pull out?)

I fear the same will be true if the Clinton Camp returns to power...swept along by the nation's disgust with the Bush administration. The Clinton pendulum will swing too far in its quest to crush the enemy... it will alienate the 50.1% American who voted Republican in the 2004 election.

Left to her own devices, and without her deep-seated anger, Hillary might be a good President -but she will never, ever be left to her own devices...she is part of the machine warfare that practices what might be characterized aptly as the politics of ideological rage.

Furthermore, she thinks that she has to prove to us that she's "tough," so much so that she invents sniper attacks in Bosnia. This is not the first time that she has discarded the truth to make a point.

And, her husband, the former President, seems destined to paly a sort of "Cheney role" in her administration. In thei campaign he's gone over the edge -unrestrained by the limits of his former Office, he is degenerated into a mean spirited "attack" dog for the "machine."

Yes, he's now smiling and bowing and apologizing...but Bill Clinton wants to win - at any cost. And that motivation includes crushing Obama - if he stands in the way.

A Clinton Presidency will just add to the politics of hate and rage that is poisoning our national political dialogue. A Clinton Presidency will merely add to the level of nastiness that have caused many, many elected officials on both sides of the aisle to attempt to distance themselves from the machines.

That's exactly why more folks like me are independents.

In this first decade of the 21st Century, highly partisan politics is not going to help America, either domestically or internationally. We need to disarm the haters - take away their raison d'êtres. We need to get beyond the "conspiracy wars" of the 1990's.

I think that we need to thank the Clintons for their service, let Hillary go back to the Senate where she can craft major legislation, and Mr. Clinton can go back to his private affairs - and stay out of the White House.

With due respect, (and I voted for them - twice) the Clintons are from the past.

We have been looking for a new direction and a new energy. Let's look beyond the Clintons.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | March 30, 2008 2:17 PM

Rendell's comments reveal how 'right' and 'left' have happily divided the country so that only an autocrat, ala Bush, and apparently Hillary Clinton, can 'rule' it. What his statement implies is that only someone tough and unwilling to compromise can push through laws and whatever else they might wish, without having to consider the entire mosaic that makes up this country. In other words, the real split is between autocratic government and government of, by, and for the people I had not thought the Democrats would be so forthright about this autocratic strain introduced by 'centrism'.

Posted by: big_O_Other@yahoo.com | March 30, 2008 2:18 PM

"[I]t pains me," said Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee.

I think you mean VP nominee

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 2:18 PM

It is obvious that Dems are lining up to drink the Kool-aid. An Obama candidacy will be a political Jonestown for the Democrats, and it has noting to do with Obama being black. He is a political fraud, propelled by the love-sick MSNBC unprofessional news types. When Hillary makes a mistake, she is just plain evil; when you criticize Obama you are considered a racist. Look, even Liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro, of all people, can't escape this madness. She was called a racist herself for her comments about Obama. No Kool-aid for me, thanks.

Posted by: Fred | March 30, 2008 2:19 PM

The Clintonistas are becoming more shrill by the day and now Rendell got this ugly streak about him. I just popped another donation to the Obama campaign -- Fred, I'd soon give the money to Obama's campaign than Hillary. Hillary's campaign will never see a dime from our house (or from the dog house, chicken house, out-house, hen-house, etc.)

Posted by: Meldupree | March 30, 2008 2:25 PM

The last person to argue about which agenda between the two Democratic candidates is better, is Sen. Kerry. He could not even argue against the swift boaters, despite his being a combat hero. He and Senator Kennedy were rebuked by their own state, because of their preemptive choice of candidate, even as they know that being superdelegates themselves, they should have had withheld their decision until the day of the convention. If they do not know the purpose of their being superdelegates, then who are we to believe that Sen. Kerry knows what he is talking about relative to Obama's health care plan. Are we to say that superdelegates are just spare tires with holes, eh?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 2:31 PM

These days, it is rather unfortunate for folks to become too emotional on rhetorics and stigma; thus, forgetting about the enormous problems we have in this country and the world. The problems we have require a president with vision, experience, and strong leadership to resolve. The reality is that we only have 3 people left to be chosen as our next president: McCain, Clinton and Obama. Let's try to really understand who has the best qualifications to lead us in the next 4 years.

Posted by: Qualifications | March 30, 2008 2:31 PM

It is a joke that Kerry would comment on CLinton's negatives and how she would lose in Nov. The guy could n't even go against W on his war hero record. His is a loser, and not in a position to comment on democratic nomination nor Clinton's chances.

I was struck when he started talking about who is best positioned to go against McCain on ABC today. This is the same McCain, who Kerry wanted to make his VP, till McCain turned it down. SO, that was Kerry's judgement. ANd now he is qualified to discuss Clinton, her judgement, and so on? WHat gall.

As for the popular vote, the Obamafascistas are a fraud. They know that if MI and FL vote, Obama will lose in popular vote, so they are desperate to shut those states down. It is difficult to imagine worse scumbags in lfe than these.

Posted by: intcamd | March 30, 2008 2:32 PM

Lieberman is correct when he said, "that the Democratic Party changed,"
It is evident from the media bias Obama receives to the attacks by Obama supporters against Hillary supporters. The moderates of the party are being pushed to the curb. If Hillary has the momentum going into the convention than she should be the nominee.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | March 30, 2008 2:33 PM

there are rules for a reason -

Hillary Clinton signed the pledge and now wants to change the rules

This tells you all you need to know about the Clintons

The only "rules" they observe are the ones they make

Posted by: alison | March 30, 2008 2:36 PM

I don't care about what Clinton can get done, she is a liar, cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and would be bad for America.

We need somebody that CAN BE TRUSTED TO TELL THE TRUTH, and her entire history is based on lies and distortions. If you don't believe me look at her so-called 35 years of experience, her health care fiasco, her Bosnia LIES (not misspoke), her Northern Ireland lies, her SCHIPS lies, her Watergate lies, and on and on and on. It is like the toilet paper that gets stuck to the bottom of shoes, her lies go with her wherever she goes, and she cannot get away from them.

If that is not enough, try to figure out why her negatives are at or above 50% across almost all of the polls. She cannot be trusted or believed. She and her husband are adherents of the "lie, cheat, and steal" approach to all they do.

Enough said.

Posted by: swanieaz | March 30, 2008 2:36 PM

Rendell:
"I think the important thing to understand is who's got the best solutions for the problems, not just unification. That's great, but unification is not going to bring us health care," said Rendell, a supporter of Obama's opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
______________________________________________
As ex-Governor of Virgina L. Doug Wilder stated recently, Hilary had eight years to construct a health care plan to cover all American's while her husband was the President. He empowered her to do just that. But she failed. So why should we believe that she would be successful now.

In short, that dog has gone out to hunt, but we've now learned that it does not bite. In short, it is worthless.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | March 30, 2008 2:37 PM

I am a life-long Democrat, having voted for Hubert Horatio Humphrey in 1968, George McGovern in 1972, and every Democratic Presidential candidate since then. However, I will not vote for Barack Obama for President, based on what I know of him until now.

He doesn't have much a paper-trail/track record, having only been on the national scene for two years. He is running for the Presidency of the United States, an office of overwhelming power in which he will have all of our lives in his hands. He has for 20 years attended a church whose minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has praised the Rev. Louis Farrakhan to the high heavens, notwithstanding Rev. Farrakhan's having viciously denounced Jews and Judaism on many occasions. This has been without any significant protest on Sen. Obama's part of which I am aware, Sen. Obama's allegations to the contrary notwithstanding; after all, he has remained a member there, and accepted awards and dinners from Rev. Wright, a supporter of a man who could be termed the Afro-American equivalent of Adolf Hitler.

I am very well aware that there is white racism in many places in America, and that other preachers have from time to time preached in this fashion. I respectfully submit that these factors are irrelevant in this specific context. We are talking about the qualifications of one man, Senator Barack Obama, for an extremely powerful position, and his relationship with one minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and what that relationship implies for those qualifications.

We have here more than a generic "guilt by association." We have a close and intimate relationship over twenty years between, on the one hand, a minister who greatly respects Rev. Farrakhan, and, on the other hand, a man who would be President, the most powerful political figure in America. I feel that I am justified in regarding Senator Obama as a huge security risk for Jews.

I am an Orthodox Jew. I am not Hasidic, but I live in an area with many Hasidim, some of whom are my friends. Their relationship with their "Rebbeim" (the leaders of Hasidic groups) is analogous to that of Senator Obama with Rev. Wright. They all listen very closely to, and take very, very seriously, what their Rebbeim say. They are far from being robots, but anything a Rebbe says is treated with the greatest of respect and deference.

Again: Senator Obama has been in a close relationship with Rev. Wright for over 20 years. I hope that you will understand why I am apprehensive concerning which of his minister's teachings have most influenced him. Especially given Israel's precarious situation and its dependence on the USA, I feel that I must be very concerned about his history. With respect, I submit that this goes far beyond "guilt by association," both with regard to the closeness between this teacher and this disciple, and our (Jews') vulnerability.

I am a Democrat. However, if he is nominated by the Democratic Party for the Presidency, I will not vote for him. My reasons are given above

Posted by: Bob from Brooklyn | March 30, 2008 2:38 PM

Would you ever ask a skirunner who is close to the frontrunner leave the race?! Never!

What a monumental mistake would it not be if the right of the citizens in Michigan and Florida to make their voice heard was thwarted. What power would the new president (if democratic) have to act on behalf of the people? I suppose that legetimacy is the very foundation of a President in your country?

Posted by: Zeppelin | March 30, 2008 2:41 PM

Whenever Obama supporters talk about how "honest" he is, it makes me want to throw up.

Can't you guys and gals see that Barry's playing you for total fools?

Barry Obama's the biggest con-man in the history of politics.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.


Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 2:42 PM

There is a saying an old enemy with known faults is better than a new one.

In this case the Clintons is well known in and out all dirty laundry, blue dress and all, cigars, what have you.

Obama I guarantee you is not pure angel, he has 17 virgins waiting for him in heaven.

Posted by: Joven Kuan | March 30, 2008 2:43 PM

Here's the link.

news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 2:44 PM

Let me point out the obvious:

John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Christopher Dodd
Bill Richardson

Any advice on how to win the presidency
from any of the above is laughable.

Talk about high negatives, 2 of the above came in after 'none of the above'

Kerry was and is a vain dillatante and needs to leave the senate and take Kennedy with him.

Ar least Clinton would have answered the swift boat attack because she is running to represent the country not herself.
The swift boat attack wounded Kerry's vanity and that was the end of his interest in tteh presidency.

And it is vanity that is driving Kerry and Kennedy to seek out Obama and push him forward over the interests of the country and its people. enough.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | March 30, 2008 2:44 PM

RENDELL IS WELL SPOKEN, HILLARY IS HANDS DOWN ARE BEST CHOISE, OUR COUNTRY IS IN A MESS,AND NEEDS A PRESIDENT THAT CAN AND HAS PROVEN TO LOVE HER COUNTRY AND HELP THE PEOPLE.WE ARE IN AN ECONOMY THAT NEEDS EXPERIENCE,SHE'S SMART ,TOUGH, CARING AND RESILIANT.GOD HELP HILLARY,HELP THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: SHIRLEY SURPRISE,AZ. | March 30, 2008 2:45 PM

svreader, your girl got caught (finally) lying on videotape. All she can say is "I misspoke. I'm human and sleep-deprived." That is enough reason for me not to have her answering the phone at the White House at 3AM. And God willing, she won't.

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Governor Rendell is quite right on his comments and I look forward to the debates forthcoming that will show clearly that Hillary is the best candidate to deal with all of our problems here and internationally. If she, with our help, can surpass the vitriol manufactured by the media and Obama followers, she will suceed in winning this nomination.

Obama DOES NOT have the record behind him nor the true grit and character required for an effective leader. And frankly he has made a tremendous mistake in jumping the gun to compete for this position with so little to account for. Obama still needs to prove to this country with his own efforts and seasoned record that he has the merits. He needs to go back to the Senate and establish a record by his deeds.

Neither Kerry nor Richardson are in a position to be credible with any arguments. Kerry led us on a merry dance and obscured the truth about his real record during the Vietnam era. He could not argue this. Richardson does not have credibility with a great majority of Hispanics after giving his word to support his state vote and then conveniently changing it as an opportunist looking to get something out of this election.

So, Governor Rendell, continue your efforts in Pennsylvania as you are a man of your word and I respect you.

Posted by: Hispana | March 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Rendell is starting to sound korny.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 30, 2008 2:47 PM

If Obama is the Democratic Nominee, I will vote for McCain or not vote at all.
Anyone who can say that Barack Obama is the "unifier" for America is wrong.
I cannot believe the hate for the Clintons is so bad that you would allow Barack Obama the cakewalk into our White House with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright,William Ayers and other Palestian/Iranian affiliations.

The only unity Obama has in mind is "Socialism".

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU INTELLIGENT PEOPLE-
OBAMA IS A CON.

Posted by: jcarpe5 | March 30, 2008 2:48 PM

Here are some other good links.

The first one is about how he got elected in Chicago by forcing everyone else off the ballot.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

This is about his attacks. So much for his "new kind of politics"

www.attacktimeline.com/

Do his supporters know he actively worked against the impeachment of Bush?

Yup, its true.

www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 2:48 PM

I still don't get the folks talking about the rights of the voters in MI and FL being "thwarted." Their votes were invalidated by the legislatures which changed the primary dates in violation of the party rules. It is as though the legislature marked up each and every ballot cast with the word VOID. It has nothing to do with either candidate. The greedy legislatures decided to break the rules- and the sanction is clear-- the votes don't count. Period. End of story. What am I missing here?

Posted by: PJTramdack | March 30, 2008 2:49 PM

svreader, I'll send Obama a donation in your honor, since you are blind to who is the better candidate. Please don't thank me; it's my pleasure!

Posted by: Meldupree | March 30, 2008 2:49 PM

I think the television and literary journalists/pundits/analysts and folks alike need to get off this idea that Obama has "had an easy road" from the media. At no time has this guy received "the dusting off of the shoulders and told to go play again" from all these folks who's used this double standard to his ability as the presidency. Hillary has been "around the block" and has had much in her past to allow for folks to pick her apart. She, MUST have realized this in the past. all the while sharpening up her tools to one day run for the presidency herself. However, its one thing to make a mistake in a speech, but a TOTALLY another when you blatantly fabricate/lie on a foreign trip while you were 1st Lady to bolster your argument of experience. Then, when the covers are pulled back to reveal the truth, throw a "smoke bomb" (Rev Wright) in order to escape the madness for which you created in the 1st place. She makes it extremely hard for anyone to totally "fall in love" with the idea of fair politics when everytime she's hit hard(even by her own mistakes) she wants to use the "pity card". Why should we, isn't SHE the candidate who thinks that she is "the toughest?"

Great post GandalftheGrey, well written. Now the REAL culprit who's gotten an easy pass from the media is John McCain. yeah, the guy who can't remember what side is who in the Iraq war...and he's our supposed foreign policy expert out of the 3 ????? We are in TROUBLE if that is the case!

Posted by: Dknite | March 30, 2008 2:51 PM

Obama lied about Rev Wright over and ovver and over.

He lied about knowing what Rev Wright was preaching for 20 years.

Here are just a few more of his lies.

Obama supporters don't have a clue who Barry Obama really is.

From DD --

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 2:52 PM

You know,after thinking about it I want John Kerry to continue talking and talking. He will certainly make the job easier for Hillary because his talks always backfire. Nothing like resuscitating his FIASCO with the Vietnam veterans. It will certainly agitate quite a few!!!!

So, come to the front Mr. Kerry !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 2:54 PM

Rendell is a toady and an idiot who will say anything to appease his Clinton overlords. A butt-kiss by any other name.

Drop out, Hillary. For the good of the party. While we still have a chance to take back the White House.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 2:54 PM

meld ---

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

How can you, how can anyone, support Barry knowing that he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but he did nothing.

That says everything about just how cold a guy Barry Obama really is.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC Channel 5 news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 2:55 PM

As a past chairman of the Democratic Party, don't you just love Rendell's argument that Dean should cave in to the two spoiled brat states that tried to emasculate him now that they see that subverting the rules and regulations of the Party got them squat. They made their beds - now let them lie in them. Why even have rules and regulations if maverick states discount them to serve their own agendas. And, by the way, can it be that Rendell expects to be rewarded for his Clintonesque preference in exchange for her VP choice (in the event that she prevails in the Democratic primaries?) Ah! The transparency of it all.

Posted by: vicsoir | March 30, 2008 2:57 PM

Clintons=Well Dressed Thugs!

Posted by: Shed Some Light | March 30, 2008 2:57 PM

Yeah, Rendell is so obviously thrilled to be noticed on a national level he'll roll out the most incendiary comments just to get print. His support of the Clintons is so obsequious he makes Waylan Smithers look like a stand-up guy.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 2:58 PM

I also have noticed the tone and characterization of Pennsylvania to be that of a racist state, and the applause of Ed Rendell to keep pushing that in our minds is, well, not really to his advantage. He'll find out when he has to run for office next time...so long to the majority of Philly and Pittsburg voters.

Hmmmm, come to think of it, has Hillary released her tax returns or the contribrutions/donars list to the Clinton Library yet????? I don't think so.

Talk about a CON artist...

Posted by: Dknite | March 30, 2008 2:58 PM

svreader, DONE! You'll write and thank me later!! Remember, you sent a donation to McCain in my honor; I'm just returning the favor!

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 2:59 PM

Since the endorsement from Robert Casey
and the support of these Catholic senators: Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy,
Casey, Dodd, Richardson and others:

I would now like to know Obama's position on Birth Control. Does he favor making it widely available to all women of child bearing age, in this country and abroad, and at a low or no cost. As European countries have shown, it is an effective alternative to abortion. I would also like to know if obama supports abortion.

My guess is the catholic church does not want to support a woman who favors birth control accessibility ( and abortion) and they fished around for someone. Guess who the catholics came up with?? Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 2:59 PM

there is only one argument to use against obama and that is him belonging to an organizationwhich teaches black liberation theology and teaching his kids to believe in the same and there is NO case to be made for it. also,look at the house wright is buying for himself using church funds. what a hipocrit

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 30, 2008 3:00 PM

Governor Rendell misses the point. How can Hillary pass legislation when she's despised by most legislators?

Hillary's popularity rating is sinking to George W Bush territory. Barack Obama will have more success with his approach.

Imagine our foreign policy will once again achieve respect and cooperation from the entire world. That's reason enough to elect Barack Obama.

Posted by: Larry Buchas, New Britain, CT | March 30, 2008 3:01 PM

The same tactics that were used to get Obama elected in Chicago have been used to have him win through the CAUCUS process in the various states including Texas. And explain to me how can Hillary win the popular vote in Texas by a landslide and then lose the Caucus? Why don't you investigate about the manipulation, coercion that is utilized by the professionals hired by Obama to disenfranchise voters? This certainly warrants an investigation and expose. It looks like this process is in the road to be challenged in Court and these news the media will not report!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 30, 2008 3:01 PM

obama belongs to a racist church,no getting around it.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 30, 2008 3:02 PM

Listen to what black americans are saying.They think Obama is the answer to all their problems.In many ways they may be right...but at what cost?The wink and nod when he speaks.Listen very closely to what he says. A black women An Obama supporter told me its their turn and that white people will get a taste of their own mediine. See how they like that she said..we have been waiting a long time for this.

Posted by: cyndieshen | March 30, 2008 3:03 PM

meld --

This isn't a game.

The guy you push is a total fraud who doesn't care about anybody but himself.

He let the people who gave him his start freeze.

Your comment proves you're just as cold as Barry is.

You two deserve each other.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:03 PM

I think those of you who are accusing Senator Hillary for being a liar are the ones who are lying about her. At least we know who she is and wht she stands for for many years. As for Obama, many do not really know who this guy is and what he actually stands for. He is going around the country making all the promises that eveybody knows he is not going to keep. This is the kind of man his supporters are making all kinds of nasty comments about Hillary Clinton for. Obama supporters, be careful what you wishing for.

Posted by: Joseph | March 30, 2008 3:04 PM

The Obama campaign is trying a new tact.

" Hillary has all the right to continue the race but she has no chance to win"

This a lot of bull. The Obama people are in a rush to railroad the nomination of their dog who cannot close out the nomination process when he has got the chance and now whines that he is being destroyed by Hillary by her refusal to quit the race.

The fact is this guy is nothing but a fraud and his destruction will emanate not from Hillary but the truth. Little by little the people see the luster fade from this phony.

The latest findings is that he lied about the connection of his father to JFK. He lied in his deliberate effort to wrap himself with the mystic of JFK.

To those Obama supporters who are asking Hillary to quit, i would say shut up your traps and let the race continue. You never know what other things will surface on your candidate.

Posted by: tim591 | March 30, 2008 3:04 PM


Does anyone know the status of the
upcoming Clinton Fraud Trial? Oct. 2008

I think the plintiff is PeterFPaul.

Posted by: Misspoke wants to know | March 30, 2008 3:05 PM

Go to the back of the bus Obama. Now please sit down. Thank you.

-Geraldine, Bill, Gov Rendell

Posted by: Albert | March 30, 2008 3:06 PM

There's a wonderful article about Obama's mother-in-law, Michelle's mother in the Boston Globe today. This 71 year old matriarch is taking care of her little grand daughters, to allow and enable her son-in-law and daughter to participate in the campaign, without having to worry about their little girls. Its a beautiful aticle because it illustrates so wonderfully how Ordinary people can do Extraordinary things! Especially in a country like the USA. Neither Barack nor Michelle have the kind of legacy that Mrs Clinton has. Yet, thanks to the hard work of his mother (may she rest in peace) and that of his mother-in-law Mrs Robinson - Sen Obama has reached such national prominence. He breathes a new life into the political scene which had reached such degradation and degeneration that so many folks had lost interest.

Although Hillary Clinton is a very capable woman and is running as the 1st woman candidate for Presidency - we are a little tired of the Clintons and the Bushes. In this wonderful country of 300 million with some of the brightest and sharpest in the world, why should we stick to a handful of Clintons and Bushes? We need a new leader of the 21st century - one who inspires the youth, one who is smart, educated, intellectual, has emerged from hardships as is evident from his upbringing - and who is a visionary. Obama fits the role. Although there are so many yet who seem unconvinced, there are many many more who are tired of the Clintons and the James Carville (democrat version of Karl Rove) kind of politics.

Posted by: geeta | March 30, 2008 3:07 PM

I love those of you twisting facts on the record on Hillary. She has established a very good record in New York and the US Senate and is admired and respected by both perties. She knows how to cross lines and is effective in negotiating with all counterparts. Now, what track record does Obama has in Chicago and in the Senate? He is one of the most leftist liberals and has not done much in real accomplishments nor in negotiating. So, bring out the facts and Deeds because he is still an empty suit. His record at this point is PROMISES and this is not enough!!!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 30, 2008 3:07 PM

If Barack Obama really is a brave candidate he should not allow the Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan to be ignored. If he is a coward he will let it happen.

To vote has to be a fundamental right in regards to the ideal of Equal Citizenship, or? I thought that nobody could stop this right whatever Hillary Clinton and others have said before. This has to be a question for the voters in Florida and Michigan only to be worried about. And it´s easy to understand that they are angry.

If you had told voters in Germany that all states exept Bavaria are allowed to vote in a matter of great national importance there would have been a popular rise.

Posted by: Zeppelin | March 30, 2008 3:08 PM


The Rezko trial resumes tomorrow.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:08 PM

There is a wonderful article in the WP about Obama's lies regarding his past.

Look at the comment section too.

How can anyone support as cold a guy as Barry Obama?

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:11 PM

No, not Rezko he hasn't been tied to that one yet.

I'm talking about the lastest Clinton fiasco. PeterFPaul, google it and let me
know. FOCUS.

Posted by: Misspoke want to know | March 30, 2008 3:11 PM

Since Obama has more delegates, more popular votes, and more states, Clinton can never overtake him. Even if Clinton should ever get 55% somewhere, Obama would also receive an additional 45 % because of the proportional vote. Thus it is mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch up any more.

Posted by: Bodo | March 30, 2008 3:12 PM


Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him.

Since there is little chance for the body to be found, she makes all these negative assertions. The goal seems to be the 2012 election. By putting enough doubts on Obama, Hillary is hoping that he will lose to McCain and that she or Chelsea (who is also an experienced leader after her journey at the White House mansion) will be able to run in 2012. The Clintons might then be able to capitalize again with the rental of the Lincoln Bedroom to big lobbyists.

Whatever happens, since the Judas story with Richardson, we know that Hillary believes in ressurection; she or her husband Bill would be Jesus if I understood correctly the story. So, we can assume that Hillary will not hesitate to play the kamikaze with this election or the next one since she will probably reborn again, as the savior.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race before she hurts herself or others.

Posted by: Logan | March 30, 2008 3:13 PM

Judge a person by their actions, not their words.

Its way too easy to fall for a smooth salesman.

Look at what Barry actually does.

Not what he says.

Don't fall for the hype.

This guy is the slickest politician I've ever seen.

He's not the kind of guy he sells himself as.

Do the people who support him know that he actively opposed Bush's impeachment?

I didn't.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:17 PM

Here's the link --

www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:17 PM

Gov. Rendell needs to exit from the race with Clinton... Rendell is a divisive figure who tried to play the race card few weeks ago mentioning that he knew some white voters who would never vote for a black man... Rendell and other narrow minded people like him have no lessons to give about unity or solutions. He is an obsolete part of the old America... like pastor Wright. He may be full of good intentions but he is not fit for the 21st century.

Posted by: Logan | March 30, 2008 3:18 PM

@Zeppelin (3:08): You are misleading American readers. Germans get absolutely NO vote in the selection of the candidates which are hand-picked behind closed doors in the backroom of their party.

Posted by: Gerhard | March 30, 2008 3:19 PM

svreader,

O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!!
O-BA-MA!!!

Sincerely,

Meldupree

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 3:20 PM

Thanks! I found it.

The Clintons Face Fraud trial..Oct 2008

"As Hillary Clinton's belief in the inevitability of her 2008 ascension to the Oval Office is being shattered by the voters, the landmark civil fraud suit against Bill Clinton, with Hillary as a material witness, is proceeding to discovery and trial in California this Spring".

Google: PeterFPaul

This tells it all.

Posted by: Misspoke wants to know | March 30, 2008 3:20 PM

Kerry got the better of Rendell in the dueling Democratic health care proposals reported in this article on behalf of Obama and Clinton. It's not simply who has the "best solution," but also what degree and nature of consensus he or she develops in support of the proposal set forth. And this in turn depends upon who the solvent may be and how transparently and effectively this person, our next President, proceeds.

Certainly health care reform of the sort we need and impatiently await isn't merely a matter of waving a magic wand.

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 30, 2008 3:20 PM

To Bob from Brooklyn:

Your comments were quite thoughtful and sincere and present the many realities that we face as we evaluate the nature of this 20 year relationship. Your comments go to the heart of the issues that we would ask ourselves when at the end of the day we face reality and see that a lot of us have great concerns of this issue. It speaks to the heart of what is Obama's character, judgement and credibility in the issues that he would face as President. I, like you and many others, CANNOT run the risk of finding out too late!!!

I invite those of you who can understand reason to read Bob's comments!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 30, 2008 3:21 PM

When asked Obama said Hillary has the right to stay in the race but he sounded like he was giving her permission to do it
Obama is a fraud along with his wife

Posted by: maggie | March 30, 2008 3:22 PM

The Clintons are both proven, pathological liars. How can any sane person watch her smiling fabrication of being under sniper fire and not acknowledge that she deliberately lies when it suits her agenda? Knowing that she would certainly be exposed makes one wonder if she has lost all touch with reality and is completely deranged.


The country has endured twenty years of Bush/Clinton scorched earth politics that have polarized the nation. Their mantra of winning at any cost is a disgrace and has done tremendous damage to our political process. Fortunately, as Barack so aptly stated, "Not this time".

Posted by: Robert Luciano | March 30, 2008 3:22 PM

Hillary has an established record in the US Senator working across the aisle with fellow Republicans that speaks loud and clear.

So, Gov. Rendell wins the argument!!!

Posted by: Hispana | March 30, 2008 3:24 PM

svreader, the Rezko trial to date has revealed nothing about the relationship between Rezko and Obama. You keep holding on to something that does not exist. Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 3:24 PM

| svreader wrote:
| The Rezko trial resumes tomorrow.

The Clintons trials will resume shortly after the release of their missing records. Just a reminder of where we were with the Clintons:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Posted by: Logan | March 30, 2008 3:25 PM

meld --

This isn't a high-school football game.

Do some research.

Try actually reading posts from people like me who have worked hard to find out the truth about Barry.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

You're supporting a real jerk.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:27 PM


After explaining to my 5 year old daughter about the Hillary Bosnia flap.

Her comment was "Liar, Liar pants on fire."

I laughed, but thaught that was very insighful.

Just my2cents.

Posted by: LVLvnInVA | March 30, 2008 3:28 PM

meld --

You're in denial about Obama.

Open your eyes.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:29 PM

No more Clintons. No more Bush.

Posted by: truth1 | March 30, 2008 3:30 PM

Why do you think it is the big Democratic names supporting Hillary tend to be the older machine politicians, i.e. Rendell and Murtha in PA? Rendell who has accomplished nothing, other than legalizing gambling in his years as Governor. Murtha, the leading ear marker in the house. If Hillary gets elected it will be more of the same. Lobbyists running Washington, only their party affiliations will change, mind blowing amounts of our money disappearing into wasteful projects and bridges to nowhere. I don't know if Obama will be any different, but at least he hasn't been in Washington for 20 years and he's not taking PAC money.

Posted by: C. Donahue | March 30, 2008 3:30 PM

No one's listening to Ed Rendell any more. He's quickly becoming more and more irrelevant by the minute.

Posted by: Grant55 | March 30, 2008 3:30 PM

The reasons why the Clintons are holding their records secrets (White House records, big donations to their foundations, tax returns,...) are obvious... The Clintons trials will resume shortly after the release of their missing records. Just a reminder of where we were with the Clintons:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Posted by: Logan | March 30, 2008 3:31 PM

svreader, you support a bald-faced liar. Hillary Rodham Clinton is her name, and lying in public his her game.

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 3:31 PM

who the hell is John Kerry?

Posted by: maj | March 30, 2008 3:31 PM

meld --

Obama's far worse.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:33 PM

We wont get to health care till the war ends, and Obama has it all over Hillary on that one. Hillary helped start the war and we need someone different to end it. We need a unifier for that. Who is Rendell anyway, and why should anyone care what he thinks?

Posted by: Paul Nolan | March 30, 2008 3:33 PM

svreader, the Pope, the Dali Lama, and the late Mother Teresa are worse than Hillary Rodham Clinton in your deluded estimation.

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 3:36 PM

How can an experienced politician like Rendell be worrying about health care when a trillion dollars or more is being siphoned off for the military occupation of Iraq. Are you kidding me Ed? Do you think we fell off the truck like a pumpkin last nite? If Kennedy couldn't past health care in good times, what makes you think their is any prayer of a chance of getting health care now while the occupation continues. Listen up, bucko, Obama is the one who is poised to stop the war and bring us together. That is a necessary precondition to any chance for any type of domestic agenda. Stop pushing your health care rhetoric detached from reality. Americans know there is only so much money to go around, and the war has to stop first.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | March 30, 2008 3:39 PM

I also found out Rendell is to testify
in the upoming Clinton Fraud Trial
with PeterFPaul.

Go figure another crony.

Posted by: Misspoke wants to know.. | March 30, 2008 3:39 PM

Hillary Clinton helped George Bush by voting for the Iraq war, which helped put the economy in the toilet (and over four thousand dead service members). Nearly seven hundred BILLION dollars spent and you want to say that Obama is worse than Hillary? Heck, Hillary still owes the American public an apology for her vote. Maybe that why Hillary lie about her Bosnia trip with the greatest of ease.

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 3:42 PM

Compared to Chicago Barry Obama, Hillary Clinton is Mother Theresa!!!

How can you support him???

If you don't like Hillary, vote for McCain.


Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:43 PM

Grandalfthegrey.. great thoughtful post.
Svreader.... you are a bit short on the facts. Name calling is just so meaningless.

Posted by: RosaCA | March 30, 2008 3:43 PM

It is always a pleasure to read Hillary's supporters comments - desperation, bitterness and now pleas to God. Hillary is a liar that will do anything to win the election. And apparently so are some of her supporters.

We've spent the last 8 years being lied to by a say anything do anything repub and the last thing we need is a say anything do anything democrat as our next president.

BTW the best thing to happen to the democrats was losing the 2004 presidential election. Otherwise we would have been saddled with Bush's Iraq and economy messes. Don't blame Kerry.


Posted by: James - Los Angeles | March 30, 2008 3:43 PM

meld --

You're in denial.

Barry Obama actively worked to prevent Bush's impeachment.

Do your research.

This isn't a game.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:44 PM

Rose --

That's a serious charge.

Please provide evidence.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:45 PM

wondering if meldupree and others questioning the "I misspoke" have bothered to check the news on Obama's use of the Kennedy name when talking about his father. Now is it okay to "misspeak?"

Posted by: darleneann | March 30, 2008 3:45 PM

Carville says: "I think ... these candidates, have sort of conducted themselves affably," Carville added later on CNN's "Late Edition," but added the current contretemps over his remarks "is powder-puff stuff compared to the stuff that we're going to see in the general [election]. And as opposed to [the Obama campaign's] constant whine of how negative the Clinton campaign is and everything -- better be getting ready for a whole different ball game, because these guys are not concerned about this kind of stuff."


Carville can pretty much promise it will be nasty, because his wife will likely be directing the nasty charge for the McCain campaign, while he prepares to bring the nasty on behalf of "the Clintons".

Certainly, the advice of this "power couple" on both sides is a factor in the state of affairs that keeps American voters cynical, distrustful of politicians on all sides, and away from the polls.

Maybe it's time we move beyond the Carville-Matalin approach to politics.

Posted by: RBS | March 30, 2008 3:45 PM

Hey Bob from Brooklyn, you ought to check out Rev Hagee and John McCain before you make up your mind. Also Rob Parsely is another one aligned with McCain.. scary to say the least.

Posted by: RosaCA | March 30, 2008 3:45 PM

Rose --

Please read the stuff I've posted.

Obama's playing you for a fool.

Posted by: svreader | March 30, 2008 3:46 PM

| maj wrote:
| who the hell is John Kerry?

The question is who the hell is Hillary Clinton in addition to be Bill's wife and who dodged bullets in Bosnia coming from snipers disguised as children waiting for her at the airport?

I guess we will know when she will release her records

Posted by: Logan | March 30, 2008 3:46 PM

If Rendell was honest he would admit that there is zero chance of enacting any national health insurance plan in the near future because of the government's budget problems and the need to fund social security. He would have to be an idiot to not know that with the occupation of Iraq and emergency funding bills of $100 billion or more every year no one is going to pass any health care mandate. Why cant he get it through his thick skull that first we need a uniter to end the occupation and refocus the nation on peace. That sure as heck isnt Hillary or McCain.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | March 30, 2008 3:46 PM

WHAT DOES KERRY KNOW ABOUT HEALTH PROPOSALS? ENOUGH ON ALL OF OBAMA BACKERS, THEIR ALL REJECTS,SO SUREELY WE DONT NEED THEIR INPUT ON HOW TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY,KERRY, KENNEDY, DODD AND RICHARDSON,HE COULDN'T EVEN STAND BEHIND HIS OWN RACE.LOSERS,AND OBAMA GIVING HILLARY PERMISSION TO STAY ON,COME ON SHE WILL PREVAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TAYLER,COLO. | March 30, 2008 3:48 PM

The only people worse than Bush supporters, it seems, are Clinton supporters. They will say anything, lie about anything, and make up the most outlandish stories about Obama.
svreader has posted the same tired junk about Obama winnig the Ill senate reace in so many blogs under so many different names. Face it, what ever Obama did to get elected was legal. His opponent, a sitting senator, filed fraudulent nominating petitions with enough fake names that it got her knocked off the ballot. What Obama did was knock off a career politician who felt she was above the rules. Just like Hillary.
The voters in Mich and Fla have no one to blame but their own party officials who were warned that the delagate would not be counted if they moved the primaries. They did and they won't. As Hillary said recently in Philadelphia about how delegated, committed or not, could change their votes at the convention,"Those are the rules of the Democratic party. Rules are rules, you can only change them going forward."
So the hypocrite cries that Fla and Mich should be counted, but, hey, if an Obama delegate wants to switch, well rules are rules. What a sack of crap. All those who hopefully cry that Obama can't win in Nov, look at the polls. Even with the Rev. Wright tapes, he is still leading McCain and McCain is still leading Hillary.
Obama is not racist, he is not an anti-semite. Your racist rants don't hunt. Ferraro said the only reason Obama is where he is is because of his race. No other qualifications. That is racist. Has anyone said that Hillary is where she is because she's a woman and how would you react if they did? In reality, Hillary is where she is because she is married to a former popular president and got elected to the NY senate because the state did not have a residency requirement. If it had, would she be a senator from anywhere? Doubt it.
I am going to vote for Sen. Obama in Pa next month and I will vote for him for president in Nov. Should Hillary somehow steal the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for her, but only because McCain symbolizes four more bush years and more bush SC nominees.How come Clinton supporters say they will never vote for Obama? Thanks for the good of the party.

Posted by: mike l | March 30, 2008 3:50 PM

svreader, you are indeed a pathetic Clintonista: Hillary Clinton is Mother Teresa?? Man, you are delusional; greatfully, Obama's healthcare plan cover mental health services. For you svreader, perhaps an involuntary commitment is in order. . .

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 3:52 PM

Anyone who votes for Hillary thinking that her health plan is better than Obama's ought to get a grip. This election is not going to bring any health plan into existence. The country is in too deep a hole financially, and already overcommitted with social security and the occupation of Iraq. Its really idiotic to even talk about anyone's health plan before uniting the country to leave Iraq as fast as possible. Rendell is selling fools gold to the lower middle class white voter and Hillary will leave them flat just like Bill Clinto who enacted no new legislation of any consequence except welfare reform in his time in office. Bill took away safety net, remember that.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 3:52 PM

Why do we have such trouble with rules us Americans? Why is there constant whine about Florida and Michigan? It seems that is akin to mortgage bailout proposals: I made a mistake,I borrowed on a house I can't afford, it's not my fault, so Uncle Sam must bail me out (..and I'm voting for the one that promises me this fairy tale).
Is it not time for our Nation to leave the adolescent stage and grow up? Rules are made, all parties agreed, there is no discussion. Learn and do it better next time. Enough about Michigan & Florida; if all those voters wanted to be counted (me among them) they should have beat down the door of their respective state democratic party's offices over a year ago.
Let's grow up and show the world the true leaders we can be!

Posted by: Pete in FLA | March 30, 2008 3:53 PM

GandalftheGrey: Thank you for an excellent analysis of the Clinton campaign. Your insights and analysis, as always, are perceptive and accurate. I appeciate the way you give credit to Senator Clinton, where credit is due, and I appreciate even more the absence of vitriol and rancor in your posts. I look forward to reading more of your thought.

Posted by: marmac5 | March 30, 2008 3:54 PM

Maybe it is time to move beyond that approach to politics, but Obama certainly isn't doing it for us. from what I have seen, he is a more masterful POLITICIAN than Bill Clinton ever was. Very adroit with use of words in general - but especially innuendo. What bothers me most - sounds strange, but has the same smirk that Bush has. interesting have never heard it mentioned - but it's there. I think it's the arrogance that gets me, basically. Can't take another four years of it. If Hillary doesn't get it, will have to go with McCain - only thing close to honest I could find between Obama and McCain.

Posted by: darleneann | March 30, 2008 3:55 PM

I have to disagree with Governor Rendell. Senator Obama is the only potential Democratic nominee with a prayer of uniting the country after the election. Without a unified country and some degree of bipartisanship, there won't be progress on health care, social security, immigration, and a host of other important issues. Issue papers that cannot be transformed into signed bills are not worth very much.

Posted by: Karl Shipps | March 30, 2008 3:56 PM

Hillary's arguments about Florida and Michigan are like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe talking about fair elections. Everyone knew that there was no primary campaign there, but Hillary will take votes where she can get them.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 3:56 PM

Gerhard (3:19) writes: "You are misleading American readers. Germans get absolutely NO vote in the selection of the candidates which are hand-picked behind closed doors in the backroom of their party."

Of course you are right "Germans get NO vote"! However I am not misleading anybody. Modern history shows that an American President who is lacking in judgement has become a threat to peace all over the world. For that reason it´s good to be able to talk about what´s going to happen in your country. Internet is great and so is Washington post.

I repeat, if you had told voters in Germany that all states exept Bavaria are allowed to vote in a matter of great national importance (in Germany) there would have been a popular rise.

Since I have always regarded your Union as being an example I am a bit surprised when I read that voters in great states like Florida and Michigan will not be allowed to make their voice heard!

What a great example! After all you are not a third world country.


Posted by: Zeppelin | March 30, 2008 3:56 PM

Hillary is far the best candidate!!!

Posted by: rene | March 30, 2008 3:58 PM

Hillary Clinton voted for the war that makes enacting any health plan impossible for the foreseeable future. Vote's have consequences. Its not just the lives that have been lost, its the money that has been spent and continues to be spent and is no longer available. If we are lucky, we will get to keep Social Security and Medicare, never mind the fools gold promises of a perfect national health care plan.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 3:59 PM

Hillary Clinton's health care plan would be dead-on-arrival in the Congress. I don't care how great it is, it will never be passed in its current form.

So, it's a bit disingenous to compare her "plan" against Obama's. All that matters is what can be passed. An ability to bring people together is obviously important in this regard. Hillary hasn't demonstrated that she is cabable of doing so.

Posted by: Steve | March 30, 2008 4:00 PM

Fortunately after the Senate election this fall, we can kick Liberman out of all the Senate committes.

Posted by: Oscar | March 30, 2008 4:01 PM

I agree with Gov. Rendell that solutions are important. However, Sen. Clinton is far from the "solutions" candidate. Look at Senator Clinton's actual work: S.Res 485 (109th Congress).

S. Res 485 raises important issues regarding family planning, yet it is a meaningless resolution as it is just that--a resolution. Resolutions are mere statements--resolutions are meaningless words on paper.

By contrast, solutions are appropriations for programs. Absent the funds, there are no solutions.

Posted by: Catherine Houston, TX | March 30, 2008 4:01 PM

Rendell is way off the mark on the revote. I mean, Hillary was the only one on the ballot in Mi and she only got, what, 55 percent of the vote? All of Rendell's talk about Obama not being able to win the white vote. Obama has won the white vote in numerous states. Sure, he hasn't won over the Regan Dems, but Clinton can't win educated white voters who make over 50,000, nor college-age voters, nor African Americans. There are so many groups Clinton can't win, which is why Obama is beating her.

Rendell is an old-school politician who understands that if Obama wins his days are over, as are the Clintons.

By the way, all this nonsense that Hillary can get health care through the Senate and House is a joke. She had her chance, and she failed. She will fail again, because she hasn't learned the lessons from her past, which is obvious by the way she lied and continued to lie about her trip to Bosnia. When a third-rate comedian challenged her on it, instead of coming clean she just expanded the lie, adding the bit about running for cover under sniper fire.

Hmm, that reminds me of a certain politician who got caught in a lie and in his defence lied some more. Oh, yes, her husband.

I guess for Hillary, whether or not she ran for cover under sniper fire all depends upon what the meaning of sniper fire is.

And if she were such a good, electable candidate, and Obama can't win as they all say, then why is Obama winning.

Posted by: edzo2 | March 30, 2008 4:01 PM

Darlenann -

I think you are delusional . Obama truly has tried to stay above the fray in this campaign and to be a gentleman. Its amazing how you can be offended by Obama's skillful use of words yet don't have an issue with the flat out lies of the Clintons. You really need to look at what you want from a candidate. I think you are seeking some attributes that Clinton and McCain have in common that Obama simply will never be able to live up to.


Posted by: james - Los Angeles | March 30, 2008 4:02 PM

I like Taylor's comment because it typifies the problem of the Clinton machine. ALL CAPS!!!!

Of course, the Clinton message is more important than everyone else's. Of course they have the right to shout louder.

What really matters here, according to Taylor it seems, is sheer volume and harangue. Overwhelm the other guy by whatever means it takes.

It just makes me tired. Lighten up all.

I urge us all to remember to respect one another as thinking people, to recall that the vast majority of Americans agree on an awful lot more than we disagree on. And remember that the subset of Americans who are supporting Obama or Clinton agree on 99% of the key issues.

Much of our heat comes from misguidedly merging our enthusiasms and fears. By letting hope for a historic first get muddied by anger that it might not happen, we cheapen the sentiment. And when we lash out at the opponent who might best us, we are made small.

Cheer for your champion but respect your opponent. We are all in this together.

Posted by: bill14 | March 30, 2008 4:06 PM

There are only two questions Hillary needs to answer in the next few months:

1) when, not if, will she withdraw from the race
2) how low will she go in the meantime?

Clinton must have blowout victories in Penn, NC, and Indiana to even have a chance. If Obama wins any of those three and then the remaining contests where he is favored he'll be the nominee July 1st.

If he wins two or three of them, he could be the nominee by June 1st.

Hillary's path is harder. As disenfranchised as her supporters may feel now, Obama's supporters would feel much worse if she steals this from him. The way to avoid Florida-2000-like feelings is to give the nomination to the person who earned the most delegates. You know, like they do in democracies.

Posted by: PeninsulaMatt | March 30, 2008 4:07 PM

A lot of Hillary supporters here, idiotto-svreader icluded, posted obvious lies about Obama's voting records and a lot of other facts. Svreader is a liar and the very stupid one, as he is practically always caught on his lies. If one wants to go through with his links, ask svreader at first why 90% of facts, which these links mention, are easily proven to be wrong.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 30, 2008 4:07 PM

Kerry is a putz, who couldn't win a presidential election if he was the only candidate. He has no room to say anything negative about a powerhouse like Hillary Clinton. And his support of that fraud, Obama, is unforgivable. God help him if he ever has the stupidity to run for president again, because he sure as hell won't get my vote.

Posted by: onefreakinword | March 30, 2008 4:08 PM

Bill 14, Maybe if Hillary had respected her opponent in the first place we wouldnt be where we are now. She realized she couldnt win selling Hillary, so she had to do a scorched earth strategy. If the Democratic party is going to stoop to the same tactics that the GOP does against us, then what's the point? Hillary like Lieberman would rather push herself forward regardless of whether people really want her as the candidate. I wont be supporting the nominee if its Hillary after how she has campaigned.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 4:11 PM

Gandalf the Gray's piece--at the very opening of the comments--serves as marvelous, albeit sad, preface for the hatred and vitriol that washes through the posts below it.

Gandalf, my friend, you selected an excellent nom de plume; that was a wise and thoughtful post. It articulated well the very reasons why I, too, am an Independent.

I have voted in every election--local, state, national--since I first became eligible in 1968. I would never "sit out" an election; the vote is too important; it is an expression of political will. My political will is to break the Two-Party stranglehold on America. I want to restore democracy to the nation. I refuse to waste my vote by endorsing a Democrat or Republican.

I rather doubt that I will vote for Nader; I will consider McKinney and Gravel. Perhaps I will write in the name of a private citizen I admire.

After this brief interlude of civil discourse, the tides of anger, bitterness, and hatred are once again free to wash back and forth in the posts below.....

Posted by: IceNine | March 30, 2008 4:12 PM

There are only two questions Hillary needs to answer in the next few months:

1) when, not if, will she withdraw from the race
2) how low will she go in the meantime?

Clinton must have blowout victories in Penn, NC, and Indiana to even have a chance. If Obama wins any of those three and then the remaining contests where he is favored he'll be the nominee July 1st.

If he wins two or three of them, he could be the nominee by June 1st.

Hillary's path is harder. As disenfranchised as her supporters may feel now, Obama's supporters would feel much worse if she steals this from him. The way to avoid Florida-2000-like feelings is to give the nomination to the person who earned the most delegates. You know, like they do in democracies.

Posted by: PeninsulaMatt | March 30, 2008 4:14 PM

"No more Clintons. No more Bush" ------------------Welcome Obama, Wright and Farrakhan

Posted by: politicsIsdirty | March 30, 2008 4:17 PM

Clintons originated all heavy problems, which the country faces now. They helped to place Bush twice in the White House, which terribly enlarged these problems. They are no positive solution to any of these peoblems, their presence in WH can only increase all possible tensions, not to diminish them, no matter what paid by them people on this board are posting in their, almoat always fully fraudulent, comments. The unity might be not enough, but it is required. And Clintons, especially female, has brought to the country a lot of divisive hatred, and produced by this hatred negative implication.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 30, 2008 4:18 PM

No more war, being part of the world again. All races getting along and looking to a country where we all have a part. Welcome Obama

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 4:18 PM

If Hillary was being honest, and if her supporters had a grip, they would endorse Obama because he stands a better chance of accomplishing the desired changes than anyone else.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | March 30, 2008 4:20 PM

The Clinton's fouled our collective nest in the sixties and they are doing it again.

The old saying goes: "First time shame on you----second time shame on me.

On the other hand----maybe some folks like a fouled nest.

Posted by: Ken MCGee | March 30, 2008 4:22 PM

Onefreakinword, it looks like your 'powerhouse' is choosing the road to infuriate a lot of democrats; and it might move your'powerhouse' into the proper facility, like special regime prison, for examle. If, like you are, I were a supporter of somebody with Clintons' past, I would be very accurate currently, as they, sure, are on the very thin rope. Maybe, to step out means for them to sign own death sentence, as they are so obviously involved with 9/11, but you are not involved with something like that, I think, so, be accurate suporting them now, it would finish badly, I feel, as they are trying the limits on not unlimited patience; and wounds of 9/11 are still fresh. People might finally rip them off alive; and supporters might get the same, if around.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Either you are a pro-choice or pro-life,pro-gun or pro-gun cntrol,pro-Iraq war or anti war, and there are a lot more issues in which you will differ with your peers.You have some common grounds also.But in many issues you have to take a side and there by you will distance some people.'Unite the country'-is a common rhetoric all over the world and is effective to attract naive mind.

Posted by: andy | March 30, 2008 4:30 PM

In the early part of this Primary Barack Obama had a voodoo spell oer the white folks , they were fainting and calling him a messiah.But now that spell is broken and white people are stating to wake up to the fact tat Sen. Obama is a humbug!A Con- artist like Elmer Gantry, who is selling a false bill of goods.I hope more of them wake up before we make another mistake for eight more years.!

Posted by: Ratdragon | March 30, 2008 4:35 PM

concernedaboutdc said:
"As ex-Governor of Virgina L. Doug Wilder stated recently, Hillary had eight years to construct a health care plan to cover all American's while her husband was the President. He empowered her to do just that. But she failed. So why should we believe that she would be successful now.
In short, that dog has gone out to hunt, but we've now learned that it does not bite. In short, it is worthless."
Wow, if any one can't hunt it is Wilder the egotistic self promoter. He can't even run city hall; he is a shameful politician that can't get along with anyone including his school board and the city council. Richmond city government is a laughing stock thanks to Wilder. Wilder is a maverick and will do and say anything as long it is good to Wilder. He got elected as the first mayor of Richmond to clean corruption in city hall and what to do Richmonders get: more cronyism, nepotism, corruption and absurd waste by Wilder officials. The fiasco on his tiff with the school superintendent whether the school system offices should be in city hall and elsewhere when it palyed out in the media was more of Greek trajedy than a bureaucratic snafu. I spare you the details but let me say it was very laughable and may I say wasted tax dollars because he, Wilder, want to be looked as the omnipotent royalty or a dictator than a mere elected mayor. So Wilder has no credibility to talk about the Clintons and claim they had their eight years. He had his four years as governor and no one can remember any value that Wilder added to the Commonwealth except obtuse bickering, chicanery, and egotism as the governor or mayor. He is more bombastic than substance; in short his noises should be ignored as mere irritants

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 4:36 PM

I have one question for Senator Clinton. If the current positions were reversed and she was up on Senator Obama by a small margin of delegates and Senator Obama had won Florida and Michigan, would she still advocate for Michigan and Florida votes counting even if doing so would cost her losing everything in the end? I would just love to hear what her answer to that question would be.

Posted by: ted bryan | March 30, 2008 4:36 PM

cyndieshen are you worried that if Barack is elected that he will free your slaves....?


As for Rev. Wright, Bill and Hillary
had no problem calling him to the White House back in the 1990's so that Bill could confess too America that the chunky intern really was sucking the penis of the POTUS...

Same Rev. Wright, small world...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 4:36 PM

Liebermann took the words out of my mouth about the democratic party. Probably what he said was very calculated, given that so many Hillary supporters have said just as much in these blogs. McCain and Lieberman read the polls...they know 1/3 of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain...Liebermann's comment today articulated what so many of us Hillary supporters have been feeling and it was like he was welcoming us over. (especially with the "It's a different party than when Clinton was President.")

The party has almost become incestouous in its exclusivity...and it really has become "you're either with us, or against us." If Hillary is not the nominee...I will have no trouble leaving it.

Also....I can say with certaintly that McCain will not pick Liebermann, Powell, Rice, or any Senator for a VP. McCain is strong on National Security. He doesn't need a VP who is. He needs someone who is strong on the economy which would be a Govoenor....and why would McCain pick a VP out of the Senate, when the Senate's going to have to fight for every Republican they can keep.

Posted by: Badger | March 30, 2008 4:37 PM

Americans you should be proud of your great nation and I beleive you are. You made it possible to defeat the most evil racists ever, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers. I suppose that you cannot even imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had won the battle of Europe?

Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright - violence does not always create violence. Sometimes it`s necessery to use violence to reach peace and to prevent racism.

United States of America is like an enormous ship in rocky waters such as helthcare, terrorism, recession, etc. etc. It is necessery to be careful and to have a very reliable navigation paper to avoid grounding. I strongly beleive that Hillary Clinton will be the best pilot and that she has the most confidence-inspiring map. Obama seems to have no trouthful map at all. To me his seems to be a risky candidate.

Some comments about Hillary Clinton are filled with nastiness - a kind of manner that should not be tolerated in serius discussions. Prejudicy, intolerancy and outrage! And you know absoultely nothing about Barck Obama´s private life.

However, this is none of my business.

Posted by: Zeppelin | March 30, 2008 4:38 PM

Um, Fred dear (who posted at 2:19 pm) . A view like the one Ms Ferraro held is the definition of racism. Racism IS when you pick out the 'racial' aspect of a person and then ascribe various faults or virtues without foundation, reason or evidence to support. It occurs with most people to some degree but it is to be deplored when expressed. It is disgraceful in a politician because it shows a complete lack of wisdom and wisdom is the prime quality sought in leaders, after all.

Posted by: William Willbeforce | March 30, 2008 4:39 PM

I find it funny how low the Hillary supporters are willing to go in order to get her remotely close to him. Barring a catastrophic event that no one could see, HILLARY WILL LOSE. Again, those are the facts. To date, Hillary has no lead in any statistic.

Please don't bring up the argument that she won the states that any democratic nominee would win regardless of who it was. That "entitlement" attitude of the the Hillary Clinton campaign is the same attitude they took when they WAISTED thousands of dollars on donuts and coffee, instead of developing a sound grass roots campaign to re-introduce Hillary or get people to know her. She has brought absolutely NO new democratic voters to the party, has ZERO cross over appeal and will single handidly make those on the right fight her with every might and unify them. She cannot show proof of crossing party lines in an atmosphere that is split down the middle. She only can say she's done so in heavily democratic NY legistlation, where the Dem's rule anyway. Heck, she shut out many folks of her OWN party in her failed attempt at health care reform when "Slick Willy" was in office.

I am not sure why the rules and arguments change every time one of the many doors closes on her campaign. Hillary needs take a hard look at the folks running her campaign and relaize they got "out-witted". How the heck do you lose in every facet of this primary race when you were the CLEAR frontrunner? Easily, you smile in folks faces and do not do any work behind closed doors and then when the shades are pulled up on the windows, you find out how filthy the house really is.

Hillary is like that arrogant student who feels like they "know everything" in class and only shows up 75% of the time, while that unknown student that sat in the front of the class, is Obama, who was very adept at taking notes and giving in top notch assignments, as well as, being astute in class participation. However, when the semester ended, she walked up to receive her grade and saw a B-, while agrily looking at Obama with his A+ and that smiley face on his report card. Job well done Obama. Hillary supporters should be MORE furious that she swindled all that money and didn't put forth the work behind it or the work that it takes to become president. A hand in marriage isn't the best way to become the next president, it takes integrity, hard work and honesty!

I hope that notepad is open Hillary...Take notes, class will be in session again next Fall!

Posted by: Dknite | March 30, 2008 4:40 PM

After seven years of Bush/Cheney violations of treaties and international law, of trashing the Constitution, of defying Congressional subpoenas, and of nullifying acts of Congress with signing statements, it is not likely that the American public will have much stomach for another President that regards ,Hillary, herself as unbound by rules or, by implication, by laws.
Bill Clinton lied before a grand jury.
Hlliary Clinton lied in front of hundreds of supporters and journalists on the campaign trail. She lied not once, twice....
Hillary's attitude is "it must be me, or nobody!"
Hillary and Bill Clinton are for the wholesale market of manipulation and swindling.
After "35 years of experience" Hillary has learned:
Audience manipulation, her twisting of events, the tale's swindling core.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? No, NO, NO.
Bush and Clinton ear are done in 2008!!!

The Clinton's are named defendants in a Civil Fraud Case connected to Campaign Finance irregularities and have not disclosed the appeal of the case. There will be a trial date set at a hearing on April 25th, just 3 days after the key Pennsylvania Primary for the Fraud Case Paul v. Clinton in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff says he will call PA Gov. Rendell will be a witness in the case. Rendel probably should not be raising funds for Michigan until he has answered questions about this 2000 Clinton Fundraiser. From what I understand, this case began when prior to Sen. Clinton's 2000 New York Senate campaign and also raised donations for Pres. Clinton's Library.
Forls

It was a closed-ended question, requiring a simple yes or no response. "Did you read it?" the woman asked. Clinton said she had been briefed.
On Oct. 8, 2002, three days before the vote to authorize force against Iraq, Senate Democrats, including Clinton, caucused at the Capitol. Then-Senate Intelligence Chair Bob Graham urged his colleagues to read the complete 90-page N.I.E. before casting their war vote. It appears Clinton did not read it.
According to the New York Times, because Clinton was not yet on the Armed Services Committee, she did not have anyone working for her with the security clearances needed to read the entire N.I.E. and the other highly classified reports that pertained to Iraq. As a member of the Senate, Clinton only could have read the report.
This raises the questions: Did Sen. Clinton read the N.I.E. report? If not, who briefed her?"

The talks is talk, but is it true that Sen . Clinton told a
cheering audience in Mishawak, IN on Friday(as part of her "Solutions for America") that she would force illegal immigrants to learn English and pay a fine or go home? If she was quoted correctly, Illegal immigrants are deported, not kept around for English lessons, and many legal immigrants (contrary to what people may believe) struggle daily to learn a difficult language. The pandering to this audience is certainly different to what she pandered to the hispanics that helped her victory in California and Texas.

Educate Yourselves! Know Who You're Voting For!
#1-- Did you know that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted many many
women, including a brutal rape and got away with it through
Hillary's Clinton Machine Tactics of intimidation and silencing people?
#2-- Did you know the Clintons are criminals? Who habitually lie and
scheme to get what they want? And who have covered up a multitude of
financial, criminal and political security scandals?
#3-- Did you know they are called "The Ruthless Political Tagteam"
by those who know them? And feel they are above the law? And that
they do not have to abide by the rules as we do?
#4-- Did you know that the Clinton's extreme egos and desire for
power has driven them to plan, for years, to take over the
Whitehouse and govern America together with a form of absolute power?
#5-- Did you know that they have ways of manipulating the media and
muzzling people who oppose them? And lots more.....
EDUCATE YOURSELF & READ THESE BOOKS ON
HILLARY & THE CLINTON MACHINE BEFORE YOU VOTE:
"Takeover" by Charles Savage (Pulitzer Prize Winning Book)
"Target" by Kathleen Willey (One of the Victims of Bill Clinton)
"The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein
"Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton Whitehouse" by
Gary Aldrich (New York Times Bestseller)
"Hillary's Scheme" by Carl Limbacher (New York Times Best Seller **** To Pay" by Barabarah Olsen (now deceased killed in 9-11
New York Times
Best Seller)
"Can She Be Stopped?" by John Podhoretz (Best Selling Author)
"Whitewash" by L.Brent Bozell III
"The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton" by Bay Buchanan
GOOGLE THESE NAMES:
Juanita Beroaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Ed Willey
Elizabeth Ward Gracn
Gennifer Flowers
Paula Corbin Jones
Vince Foster
Mark Rich
James Riady
Slick Willie (Bill Clinton)
ALSO:
Travelgate
Filegate
Chinagate
Nannygate
Sexgate
Whitewater
Raft of IRS Audits Launched Against Political Opponents and others...
Monica Lewinsky was scared for her life.
As was Linda Tripp, who has sinced moved away and changed her identity.
THE CLINTONS ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE.
PLEASE VOTE FOR ANYBODY ---ANYBODY--- BUT THE CLINTONS.

by Insidebayarea.com

Posted by: Gov. Rendell will be a witness in the case for the Fraud Case Paul v. Clinton | March 30, 2008 4:41 PM

If Hillary was being honest, and if her supporters had a grip, they would endorse Obama because he stands a better chance of accomplishing the desired changes than anyone else.

Posted by: Paul Nolan |
==
Read the polls Paul...you aren't getting it. 1/3 of Hillary supporters will either not vote or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Your intense love and devotion toward Obama blinds to the fact that those of that don't see...won't see it.
So to you I say..If Obama was being honest, and if his supporters had a grip, they would realize Obama will not win in the General Election.
John McCain will be a good President..you don't have to worry.
---

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 4:43 PM

Joe Lieberman should actually declare himself a republican. Now his notion of comparing McCain to JFK is beyond rational. McCain is so out of touch with reality that it is not even funny anymore. He claims the Iraq war is doing well after the 4000 US person was killed and after Iraq is engaged in a civil war. Voting for McCain is like throwing a cinderblock to a drowning person. In this case it is Hillary throwing the cinderblock that she thinks is a lifejacket.

Posted by: bruce | March 30, 2008 4:44 PM

it's funny how in poll after poll, 55-60% of the american people agree with the position on the Iraq war held by a small group of radical leftists, while virtually no members of the Democratic party agree with Lieberman's position.

Posted by: Alan in SF | March 30, 2008 4:44 PM

Here's another good illustration.

Andy writes:

Either you are a pro-choice or pro-life,pro-gun or pro-gun cntrol,pro-Iraq war or anti war, and there are a lot more issues in which you will differ with your peers.

In fact, I'd argue that most Americans find themselves defined in shades of grey on these issues. Lots of folk think people should have the right to bear arms but see some need for controls on the most dangerous ones. Lots of folk are pro-choice but draw a line somewhere after which it is wrong to abort.

Andy and all, I suggest that defining politics by contrasts is, well, good for politics -- it helps the game get played and focuses energy and time on minutia.

But it kinda sucks for POLICY. Ultimately, its all about the policies we come to that represent compromises on thorny issues. If the spirit of compromise that is natural in policy making could be more prevalent in politics, likely we'd get more done.

Posted by: bill14 | March 30, 2008 4:46 PM


Pa. governor touts Clinton, implicitly criticizes a key Obama campaign rationale.

And a guy named Goldfarb writes it up for the Washington Post, under the heading "Unity isn't Enough", because Obama won't support the Zionists as much as Clinton will.

How obvious.

Posted by: wardropper | March 30, 2008 4:47 PM

Ideas for solutions are not enough either. In case no one has noticed without consensus we have gridlock and still nothing gets done.

Posted by: heartlight 3, Maui, HI | March 30, 2008 4:48 PM

Rendell talks nonsense about policy before unity. Presumably he would put carts before horses, too? Or is that how they do things in his home state of Cloudcuckooland?! Note to Zeppelin: learn to spell - and before the hydrogen hits the flame!

Posted by: William Thrilllbeforce | March 30, 2008 4:48 PM

it's funny how in poll after poll, 55-60% of the american people agree with the position on the Iraq war held by a small group of radical leftists, while virtually no members of the Democratic party agree with Lieberman's position.

Posted by: Alan in SF | March 30, 2008 04:44 PM

==
So Alan, what has the radical left done to get us out of Iraq? They've given Bush everything he asks for. He wants more money, they give it to him. He wants more more troops...they give it to him. They made a promise to us in 2006 and they have accomplished nothing...oh wait Pelois did manage to get a vote through Congress to condemn the Move-on ad...
At least with Lieberman..what you see is what you get. With our current Congress and Senate, you have a bunch of do nothing broken promises...liars.

Posted by: Badger | March 30, 2008 4:48 PM

To make a long story short, I do not like John Kerry. There is something about him that makes me uncomfortable. It is something like he is a phony now. Years ago, he was the real thing, trying to close down the Viet Nam War - he was very impressive in Congressional hearings, but he is not the same man today.

John Kerry is an elitist east coast gentleman that knows nothing about regular people's plight. John Kerry knows nothing about what makes people want to vote for Hillary. John Kerry needs to get out among the regular people again.

Barack Obama, Junior is not regular people. Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., was an elitist that Americans flew here and educated in the finest schools.

Barack Obama, Jr., also was an elitist who was educated by America opening its purse.

Hillary is a regular person who understand what people are going through and she will do everything she can to help us. gw.

Posted by: grace | March 30, 2008 4:50 PM

Zachary A. Goldfarb - clearly a Muslim!

Posted by: Muddy Waterfall | March 30, 2008 4:51 PM

Odd indeed that Obama is being threatened with the loss of the Jewish vote. Exit polls for the past 2 elections showed that the Jewish vote went overwhelmingly to George Bush and any other Republican candidate. Two things made it noteable:(1) prior to the war in Iraq, the Jewish vote had been overwhelmingly Democratic and (2) prior to the war in Iraq, the Jewish vote had be overwhelmingly Democratic (worth repeating).

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2008 4:51 PM

Hillary lies but talks about "speeches". She is racism personified and the ugliness of her campaign is killing the Dems. I'm glad that this is the last generation of American WWII hate mongers. Only after they die will the country progrss on race issues. Good ridance.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | March 30, 2008 4:52 PM

Did you know that Barack Obama sexually assaulted many many Obama girls, including a brutal rape and got away with it through Mich. Obamas Machine Tactics of intimidation and silencing people?

This could be true but you really don´t know. Because you know nothing, nothing, nothing about his private life. This is stupidities but educate yourselves!

Posted by: Insidebayarea | March 30, 2008 4:56 PM

grace - 4.50 p.m. - the president is not someone who ought to be a 'regular' person. It is an 'elite' position. It is for the president to be 'irrelegular' - that helps regular types to keep on being regular. And if there were only more 'gentlemen' the world would not be as it is!

Posted by: Ele Fitzgerald | March 30, 2008 4:57 PM

The PA governor should keep supporting his favorite candidate and gives the rest of us a break.
He has himself said that for most people in his state the skin of candidates matter than anything else and it is understandable that he is siding with the majority. All Americans do not have that kind of view.
It is clear that all he can grasp from what Obama has been saying is a single word. He should do better than that because uttering the word solution also does not bring solutions.

Posted by: kizm12 | March 30, 2008 4:57 PM

Bush/Bush = Bad for America

Clinton/Clinton = Worse for America

Posted by: Maddogg | March 30, 2008 4:58 PM

Hillary lies but talks about "speeches". She is racism personified and the ugliness of her campaign is killing the Dems. I'm glad that this is the last generation of American WWII hate mongers. Only after they die will the country progrss on race issues. Good ridance.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | March 30, 2008 5:01 PM

If and when we kill every man, woman, and child in Iraq, McCain and Bush can claim Vitory. Cheney wins the oil wells. Bomb Iran
Lieberman will be happy.

Posted by: cyril masse | March 30, 2008 5:02 PM

Let's take a big breath for a moment.
We have a lot of problems, many of them created by the present administration.
We are losing significant ground to other countries, and soon we will no longer be leading, only surviving.

We have 3 candidates that can start to solve some of our problems.

McCain= George Bush III

Obama= 1 year national experience before beginning his run, with very little significant accomplishments nor influence.

Clinton= Plans, experience, compassion, strength.

Lets put aside hate. We have way too much of this to go around, and there is much work to be done to restore our fiscal and national leadership.

Posted by: andrew | March 30, 2008 5:04 PM

Insidebayarea, thanks for sharing your fantasies. You could be a moron but I don't know for sure. And it's obviously news to you that Obama has written an autobiography and that the world has seen his family on tv a gazillion times. He is not the mystery - the mystery is you and how anyone with a supposed interest in this election can dare write such filthy garbage as you have done in a public forum. For shame!

Posted by: Foucault Aubere | March 30, 2008 5:04 PM

badger -- totally agree with you. the dems in congresss are pitiful sellouts who've betrayed the people who elected them.

Did I say anything about the congressional dems in my original post? Don't think so.

Posted by: Alan in SF | March 30, 2008 5:05 PM

Hillary is PURE EVIL. She is trying to destroy Obama so she can run after a 1 term McCain administration. The woman is sick in the head and she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the white house ever again.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 5:05 PM

Obama talks talks talks about Change Change , unity unity.. Did you ever notice how he doesnt look anyone in the face directly ? A sure sign that you cannot trust someone- take it from a Judge. !! Talk is cheap. He is afraid of alienating the women of this country thats why he said Hillary should stay in the race but his body language shows that he'd like to throw her under the bus. He talks about how we should redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan yet he is head of the committee on Afghanistan and he hasnt held ONE HEARING. He talks against the Iraq war but he has voted to keep it going many times. He disses the white mother and grandmother who raised him and he praises the black father who abandoned him and went on to impregnate other women 7 times !! Where does his loyalty lie ? Certainly not to his mother or grandmother who RAISED HIM !! He is associated with the Black Panthers, in his offices there are posters on the wall of terrorists and supposedly there is a story in the Pentagon now about him being associated with terrorists . WE CANNOT TRUST THIS MAN.. Don't be fooled with his pretty speeches. Thats how cults are formed and they blindly follow the one with the golden words. We know EVERYTHING about Clinton- it isnt always pretty but the Republicans have not destroyed her. She truly does want whats best for America !!

www.obamatruth.org- read it before you vote !
Go Hillary !!

Posted by: jimbo | March 30, 2008 5:08 PM

I would consider Obama's candidacy more seriously if he had served at least a full term in the U.S. Senate like Hillary did. He has not, I don't find his candidacy credible especially due to Impastor-Wright association and how that medium was used against Hillary to possibly sway some of the black vote. I find Obama to be similar to John Edwards presidential run in 2004, both very smart, but, lacking EXPERIENCE in some very serious areas. At that time in 2004 Edwards had at least completed a full term in the U.S. Senate. He got trounced by Cheney in the debates, we can't allow that to happen again. Although, I believe Obama at this stage is far more formidable than Edwards in 2004 despite lack of Experience.

Hillary 2008!

Posted by: cheersdk | March 30, 2008 5:10 PM

To Bob from Brooklyn WELL SAID!!!! It took courage to post your message IN SPITE of the Reverend Bigot supporter of Obama I would ALSO include Sen. Lieberman as part of the cabal against Sen. Clinton--Sen Lieberman HAS NO CORE!!!. He is nothing more than a suck up and a lackey to Sen. MCain and HIS EVANGELICAL SUPORTERS. This is where Sen. Lieberman belongs along with Pat Robinson--Rev Haghee (?) and last BUT NOT least A.I.P.A.C.the Israel lobby group made up of mostly wealthy Jewish Republicans. The people of Conn. deserve BETTER. The Dems. SHOULD strip him of ALL his Chairmanship positions WHATEVER THE COST> I dare say after the Dems take over the senate they will have captured enough Republican seats so as to make Lieberman go to the Republican party he seems love. He will fit in very well with the war mongers on the right and he can go down in flames with the rest of them after the Dems. take the Senate--to h--l with him.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 5:12 PM

Yonkers, New York
30 March 2008

Sen. John Kerry's loud endorsement of Barack Obama does not carry weight even in his bailiwick, Massachusetts. He doesn't need to be reminded that Obama lost to Clinton in Massachusetts. It should be obviously clear to him by this time that he has very little if he still has any credibility with the American people.

His defeat in the hands of George W. Bush in the last presidential elections is still quite fresh in the minds of the American people. Thus, a high-profile loser's endorsement, while able to make small ripples in the political pond, really will largely be ignored by the electorate.

But it is understandable why Obama and his campaign would grab at any straw they can find to keep afloat.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, on the other hand, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, is a winner. He not only won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination against now-Senator Casey; he won against his Republican opponent for the position of governor of Pennsylvania.

It should be obvious to all that Gov. Rendell's endorsement of Hillary Clinton carries a lot of weight with the people of Pennsylvania, and probably even beyond Pennsylvania.

If as expected Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania by a wide margin over Barack Obama in the primaries scheduled for April 22, a lot of the credit should go to Governor Rendell's endorsement.

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | March 30, 2008 5:14 PM

Jimbo is a perfect name for you. Ignorance of the highest order. Clear out the empties from your filthy trailer. Take a second from making out with your sister and kill yourself. Thank you.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | March 30, 2008 5:17 PM

To Bob from Brooklyn WELL SAID!!!! It took courage to post your message IN SPITE of the Reverend Bigot supporter of Obama I would ALSO include Sen. Lieberman as part of the cabal against Sen. Clinton--Sen Lieberman HAS NO CORE!!!. He is nothing more than a suck up and a lackey to Sen. MCain and HIS EVANGELICAL SUPORTERS. This is where Sen. Lieberman belongs along with Pat Robinson--Rev Haghee (?) and last BUT NOT least A.I.P.A.C.the Israel lobby group made up of mostly wealthy Jewish Republicans. The people of Conn. deserve BETTER. The Dems. SHOULD strip him of ALL his Chairmanship positions WHATEVER THE COST> I dare say after the Dems take over the senate they will have captured enough Republican seats so as to make Lieberman go to the Republican party he seems love. He will fit in very well with the war mongers on the right and he can go down in flames with the rest of them after the Dems. take the Senate--to h--l with him.

Posted by: vergens2 | March 30, 2008 5:19 PM

Where are the tax returns? How can anyone believe that the Clintons are honest??? One little reminder . . ."I did not have sex with that woman" . . .it's called perjury folks. And how about the Bosnia issue . . .running from sniper fire. How about Whitewater? All the candidates stretch the truth but these are outright lies. Wake up!!!! None of the candidates are perfect but haven't we had enough of the Clintons??? Richardson was very brave to endorse Obama,the easy thing for him to have done was support Hillary.

Posted by: mj | March 30, 2008 5:22 PM

Thanks, Gov. Rendell, for reminding us of the importance of "The Audacity of Hopelessness." That's great strategy, along the lines of Mrs. Clinton's "insult 40 states" plan (only the big states count). Hooohaaah. God forbid we support a candidate that wants to unify the country -- I think vast right wing conspiracies are much more important, eh? Lol ... let's go Obama -- this is your year.

Posted by: Omyobama | March 30, 2008 5:22 PM

Unity is what holds us together as a people. There is no higher value. With unity it is possible to end a war, to pay for health care, to agree on fair taxes or tax cuts, to agree who is a good judge for the Supreme Court, to share values as a people. We are a multicultural, multiracial, multi-language society. Every day that I worry about our media, our incompetent politicians, and the inequality in our society or lack of justice, I pray first for unity to solve our problems. Unity is the first step to having a decent society, something that doesn't exist now.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 5:26 PM

Unity has to be enough. If it isn't, then John McCain will win the presidency and lead us into an era of over nationalistic fascism that Bush has started.

When that happens, who is going to come to save us?

Posted by: Deaniac | March 30, 2008 5:30 PM

James Carville is right. We ain't seen nothing yet, especially when it comes to the right wing. Which is why Shrillary needs to step down. Do we really want to hear about Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, the one famously soiled by the semen of President Clinton, day after day again? Remember the famous finger wag? I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky? And why did he say that? Because it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. So getting your Dick Cheney waxed by an intern isn't sexual relations? Is that the same as taking sniper fire in Bosnia that never existed? Do we really want to relive the shame, all over again?

If you do, then vote for Shrillary. Hil-LIAR-y.

Posted by: Bill Clinton's Semen | March 30, 2008 5:32 PM

Dear Foucault Aubere (05:04) I honestly appreciate for helping me with your moralizing sermon.

My comment was an experiment. What I did was to copy the following posting made above (04:41): "Did you know that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted many many women, including a brutal rape and got away with it through Hillary's Clinton Machine Tactics of intimidation and silencing people?"

The only thing I did was to change the names. So, the mystery is you, Foucault Aubere, since you with a supposed interest in this election can accept such filthy garbage as this unknown person have done in a public forum. Sometimes I am wonder what kind of people are writing in discussions like this.

Double Standard "Foucault Aubere". Shame on you!

Posted by: Insidebayarea | March 30, 2008 5:38 PM

Unity isn't enough? Look what Democrats were able to accomplish with the help of Republicans and Independents voting Democratic under Roosevelt and for a while Lyndon Johnson. We'd still have a GOP Congress if people hadnt united to send a message in the last election. What exactly have the Rendells, Mikulskis, and Feinstein's of the world done to satisfy the public that wanted an end to the war? These Democrats have made a living being sops for the appearance of change or an agenda. They havent done a thing to make anything real by fake fighting with the other side and then caving over Sct nominees, budgets and war funding.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 5:38 PM

Yes, this makes so much sense. The last time Hillary tried to do anything with health-care, she was not only a miserable failure but she cost us the house and senate with her divisive politics.

Posted by: Maryland Democrat | March 30, 2008 5:40 PM

Can we question the loyalty of Mr. Leiberman to this nation ? Should he even hold any elected office. What a disgrace

Posted by: mat, New York | March 30, 2008 5:43 PM

FACISM BEGAN WITH WOODROE WILSON. A DEM. ANYONE OPPOSED TO WW1 WENT TO JAIL. FDR AND HIS NEW DEAL ARE FACISTIC. FACISM ISN'T ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY ANTI-SEMITISM. IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY CONSTANT CRISIS,GLOBAL WARMING FOR ONE. IT ALWAYS LOOKS FOR SOME CHARISMATIC LEADER TO TAKE THE LEMMINGS OVER THE CLIFF. I'M JUST GLAD IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO LET US KEEP OUR GUNS.AS IF THEY COULD TAKE THEM.

Posted by: gary | March 30, 2008 5:44 PM

quite telling when a person can come on this site and say obama's church is racist and not one person on here says anything in his defense about that. hmmmm

Posted by: GARY | March 30, 2008 5:49 PM

Who is the real Obama?

Obama is a trained lawyer who became a community activist in the south side of Chicago. In this election, he is currently presenting himself as a "uniter" who will heal what ails America. Barack is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His claim to be a "uniter" is not valid when one considers his background. He is also as ruthless a politician as any ever were.

Obama was taught in the style of organizing created by Saul Alinsky who was a radical social scientist who espoused the idea that through agitation, people can be convinced to take action against the perceived wrongs in their lives. He believed his job was to "rub raw the sores of discontent".

From this information, I believe that Obama doesn't seem like a person who has been exposed to ideas of compromising with dignity that are needed for Democrats and Republicans to work together to move America forward. His background is filled with ideas of confrontation to force action. Barack, referring to himself as a uniter, is truly disingenuous. He is well versed in the politics of power, and its political uses. His philosophy is one of confrontation and division, not one of working together for the common good.

Barack's trainer in community organizing described Barack as "a natural, the undisputed master of agitation".

I believe that this is the real Barack Obama, not the "made up for middle America consumption" politician that he claims to be today.

Per the article that I am quoting from by Ryan Lizza: "By defining himself as a "community organizer" above all else, Obama is linking himself to America's radical democratic tradition and presenting himself as an heir to a particular political style and methodology that, at least superficially, contrasts sharply with the candidate Obama has become.

Again, Barack has a radical nature, not one of working with or collaborating with people of different beliefs. Does this sound like a "uniter" to you? What it sounds like to me is the way radicals undermine people in authority to gain power for themselves. Once power is gained by radical elements, oppostion is suppressed, at times forcefully.

The Alinsky methodology, named for its creator Saul Alinsky, was appealing to Barack Obama. This methodology distrusted movement politics. It also distrusted the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. Saul Alinksy believed that "You want to organize for power!" If one follows and believes this methodology, how can one call oneself a "uniter"?

Barack's political interests are all about personal power and self-interest. He is more interested in experimenting with organizing concepts as they pertain to politics and political advantage. His eventual aim, his "self-interest" is to become the president of the United States at whatever means possible. If he succeeds, one can only wonder about what radical agenda he will furtively force on the American public.

Barack has used his organizing capabilities wisely in this nominating race. He is adept at knowing how to manipulate public opinion, and how to assuage voter's anxiety about voting for him. I can only hope that the remainder of the public that has not voted in this nominating process consider his "hardball" political background, which is the antithesis of his current "uniter" marketing before they cast a vote for him. He has successfully portrayed Hillary Clinton as a negative campaigner, when he himself adeptly practices the same politics of personal destruction. After all, it all about his power and his self-interest. A zebra cannot change his stripes.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 5:50 PM

I attended the Colorado Democratic County Convention where a group of Obama's supporters got on stage for a Kumbaya moment to chant "[y]es we can!" But when I read statements from supporters like Kerry who say Clinton's proposed health care plan is unrealistic then it makes me wonder if his endorsement is his implicit acknowledgment that for Obama and his supporters, the real answer is "[n]o, we can't!"

If Kerry cannot advocate for universal coverage now but hopes it comes to pass later then that in itself says a lot about his idea of what true leadership is. Pragmatism yes, but set your aspirations as high as you can. And hoping for Obama's proposed health care program to evolve into universal mandated coverage does not strike me as being realistic. People can opt out now and not have to pay into the system but they can opt in later under some vague allusion to a penalty. But at what price to the viability of the health care system now. That is building the system 'bass ackwards.

My message to Kerry is to not back off before the fight has even started. It seems Kerry did not learn from his Swift boat debacle.

In any event, the point about Obama and his campaign is this. Unity is great. But as, if not more important, is are policies with substance. That is what Clinton brings to the proverbial table and what Obama lacks. Obama is a good man but he is inexperienced and tentative. It shows now and it will show if he becomes president. America can ill afford a continuation of that

Posted by: flyfysher | March 30, 2008 5:51 PM

John F. Kennedy, an icon of the Democratic party primarily proceeded on the notion of unity not give-aways or entitlements. He tried to appeal to Republicans and Democrats alike. Health care is in crisis, but lets not fool ourselves, it would be a new entitlement in the unlikely event any bill gets passed. Comprehensive change in America only takes places when there is unanimity or near agreement that its so bad we must change. Transitional figures like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and others have appealed to broader values that we stand for as a people. I have been a Democrat all my life, but the bringing down of the primaries with talk about unity not being good, that somehow only experience will work, that rhetoric or speaking skills with words are bad -- have all turned me against the party leadership that wants to dictate how we think. I want to have a President who has dreams about how to change America and how to unite us. If I wanted someone who is divisive I would have voted for Bush, Nixon etc. Cant the party leadership get a grip on the message? What does the Democratic brand stand for? Cynicism, trial and error, short sighted selfishness and ideology like the GOP? If thats what its about I am turning independent.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 5:54 PM

Purely by accident, the Iraq was changed course this week. It is no longer a war on terrorism, but a full fledged civil/religious was and the two sides are: Sunni & the US vs. Shiite. Shiite includes those living in either Iraq or Iran.
Iraqis know it's a civil war, but a lot of Americans are still buying the line it's a "war on terrorism" (only if you categorize every Shiite as a terrorist and then kill or capture them all...not sure we have the resources to imprison a million people at Gitmo.

Posted by: Will | March 30, 2008 5:56 PM

svreader's comments are a reminder of the urgent need for healthcare reform

Posted by: Greg | March 30, 2008 5:59 PM

I think that Kerry is off base. This election come November is going to be about the Economy, and Hillary's the strongest candidate on that point. People usually remember the 90s as being good to their wallets.

I think that most Hillary supporters realize that she isn't a saint, but she has done more to help people than 99% of the population. She's a better person than I will ever be.

In Arkansas, she started a legal aid program for the poor. Even though she wasn't entirely successful with Universal Healthcare (the Children's healthcare program did result from that), she brought the issue to the forefront of politics. ALL of the proceeds from her bestselling book (over 800K) "It takes a Village" was donated to charity.

For those of you who only see her as riding on the coattails of her husband, until Bill became President, Hillary made more money than him. She was twice named as top 100 most influential lawyers in America. She's been an effective Senator.

I use to see Hillary a lot differently, but the more I learn about her work, the more I admire her. She's not perfect, but she can get the job done, and she's the best for the economy.

Posted by: Deb | March 30, 2008 5:59 PM

Universal healthcare has been at the forefront of our politics for decades, and the main reason we dont have it is that there is no consensus on what the right solution is for the problem. Its going to take more than wishes about another entitlement in perfect form to improve our lives. Its going to take someone who has the ability to reach people across different boundaries. That has never been Hillary's talent, and I see nothing in terms of her campaign that indicates she has learned anything yet. We have learned the mistake with Bush of electing someone who thinks they will act as Chair of the Boardroom. We don't need another orderer in chief.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 6:03 PM

cindyshen: Please don't lie. No black person (man or woman) ever told you that.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 6:05 PM

John Kerry lost the election in 2004 when even Mickey Mouse should have been able to beat George Bush. As for his opinion on Hillary, it still carries about as much weight as it did with Massachusetts voters when Hillary won that state in spite of Kerry's (and Kennedy's) endorsement of Obama. Frankly, I know of no one who cares what John Kerry thinks.

Posted by: Debbie | March 30, 2008 6:06 PM

Its easy to fault Kerry who faced the Swiftboat strategy, public opinion that was still willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and a media that cut him zero breaks. Kerry has been working hard on the issues for a lot longer than Hillary Clinton, and played a more constructive role on the war. At least he was human enough to realize he made a mistake. If that cost him the election, its the American people's fault, not his.

Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | March 30, 2008 6:09 PM

Yes, Gov. Rendell, unity is not enough. However, considering how divided we are - partially due to your candidate's own campaign tactics - it is at least a threshold we need to reach to accomplish anything after eight years of Dubya. Hillary is not a unifying figure, she is a polarizing one. Her behavior over the last few months proves to me she has learned nothing from the debacle she wrought when her husband put her in charge of coming up with a plan for universal health care back in 1993. Thanks to her whack-a-mole tactics we got nothing, and if she is nominated and by some miracle elected, we can expect at least four years of nothing. That is unacceptable at this point.

Posted by: calvinnme | March 30, 2008 6:10 PM

C'mon! Joe Lieberman is supporting John McCain because he knows that of all the candidates, McCain is a loose cannon who is the most likely to go off half-cocked and bomb Iran. If McCain wins, Lieberman will be making the 3 a.m. phone call, and McCain will respond with bomb, bomb Iran.

Posted by: jdcolv | March 30, 2008 6:10 PM

The reason Universal Healthcare didn't take off is because the Insurance industry spent $100 million dollars to lobby against it. American citizens themselves weren't that keen on the idea at the time.

Now that the healthcare costs have skyrocketed, people have started to see it as a viable option. We are the only developed nation in the world that does not have an universal healthcare system - Canada, UK, France, Japan, etc. all do. They spend less on healthcare per person and yet rank higher .

Reforming an entire healthcare system is a monumentous task. It isn't going to happen overnight. I don't consider Hillary's healthcare work as a "failure;" there are always setbacks when tackling such large social problem. She can do it.

Posted by: deb | March 30, 2008 6:15 PM

They are going to find a way to take this victory away from Obama, just watch. The plantation owners may let him be number two, but they will never let him run their plantation.

Posted by: Albert | March 30, 2008 6:20 PM

Rendell is doing what he is supposed to do - promote his candidate. He also gets to poke Casey a bit since Casey and he aren't exactly friends. Casey represents a lot of Catholics, Rendell does not. As Lincoln said those many years ago - a house divided cannot stand - and the Dems are divided and handing John McCain the keys to the White House. Perhaps that is the direction we need to go. Let McCain deal with the mess Bush has created. It may be too much for the Dems.

Posted by: Bob | March 30, 2008 6:20 PM

Kerry is saying that Obama's trickle up Health Care plan is more achievable.

If Kerry really believes that he is bigger moron than I thought when I voted for him. Mr. Kerry nothing trickles up because people loose focus and we as a society have memory of an Ant.

On second thought, even though Im voted for you I am glad you lost because you haven't got a clue.

Posted by: Cerebral | March 30, 2008 6:21 PM

I support GandalftheGrey's sentiments 100% (see first comment). It is exactly how I feel. And at the moment I feel like the candidate I can vote for is Obama.

Posted by: Rocky | March 30, 2008 6:25 PM

Brisbail, beautifully articulated comments that need to be read by many in hopes that it enlightens some!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 6:29 PM

Bob, you have a point.

Maybe the Republicans should try to clean up their mess. My only concern it that John McCain, who is terrbile when it comes to economic matters, may screw it up even more.

I am a Clinton supporter. I agree with another poster who stated that Clinton is not perfect. One of the things that I like about her, and something that she is mocked for, is that she is a "wonk". What this says to me is that she is thoughtful and organized in a way that should be an asset when it comes to policy. She understands the issues and although not all of her plans sound feasible, she has shown that she can work in a nonpartisan way, which just might result in policies that most Americans can live with. That to me, is what a "uniter" is, someone who listens to both sides of an issue and then fashions a fix that addresses the concerns of the majority.

I also agree with Cerebral about John Kerry. I also voted for John Kerry, but in retrospect, he didn't deserve my vote. He is so full of himself. He reminds me of Barack Obama.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 6:29 PM

edzo2 said: "And if she were such a good, electable candidate, and Obama can't win as they all say, then why is Obama winning."

Exactly! He's won more of the popular vote, states, and delegates. We can expand it a step further, he's also ahead of her by 8% in the latest national poll.

The argument folks have made on this has never made much sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 6:30 PM

Bob from Brooklyn - Don't be so angry at the truth - what do the Jews have to worry about? American is going to continue supporting you in your quest for the entire region. Having kept up to date on Israeli-Palestinian affairs, I don't see what your problem is. Reminds me of James Russell Lowell's poem where he said "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Stop Hating!!!

Posted by: Kentake | March 30, 2008 6:32 PM

Please stop beating a dead horse. Obama did not create the chaos with Florida and Michigan. All candidates, Hillary included, agreed not to run in either state in accordance with the dictates of the DNC. Both Florida, Michigan, and Hillary chose to ignore the rules. Neither state says they can afford another election - the only fair way to count the votes. Perhaps the only solution is to split the votes equally and get on with it. Obama did not break the rules!!!

Posted by: Kentake | March 30, 2008 6:37 PM

THE ONLY TIME THAT HILLARY USES THE WORD "UNITY" IS WHEN
SHE'S TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS COMING TOGETHER AFTER THE CONVENTION.

SO WHENEVER I HEAR HILLARY TALK ABOUT "UNITY" I FIGURE THAT SHE IS REFERRING TO UNITY IN ONLY THE MOST SELF-INTERESTED WAY: i.e. "THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD 'UNIFY' BEHIND ME AND BILL"

After Hillary loses the nomination, I do not expect that she or Bill intend to help Obama very much in the Fall. I have never seen them campaign for any nominee who seeks the office they covet. Heck, Bill chose to undergo surgery after the 2004 convention, much to Kerry's frustration. I don't remember seeing Hillary out on the stump with Kerry; if she was out on the hustings at all, she was helping Senators or Congress people get elected so that they would owe her when she ran for President.

I like Rendell, He will be a great advocate for Obama later this year. Hillary's 'jumped the shark' with her Bosnia misstatements and misrepresentations.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 6:39 PM

Bob from Brooklyn: Unlike your religion, all the people I know attending Christian churches decide what they want to believe about what their pastor says. Most churches are preaching love and caring for your fellowman. If Christians really listened, we would have no homelessness, no poverty, no hunger....THINK ABOUT IT!!! Religious leaders are constantly ignored!!!

Posted by: Kentake | March 30, 2008 6:39 PM

Unity is not important? United We Stand, Divided we Fall? Unity may not get us healthcare, but it will save our damned country from coming apart at the seams. I still don't understand Hillary supporters logic with math. And why do they blame Obama for Mich and Fla? He played by the rules. In fact, throughout the entire process he has played by the rules and run a fantastic campaign, looking at the big picture and winning against the odds against a formidable name brand. Besides, Jessie Jackson won over 60% of the primary votes over Dukakis in 88. Look it up. Why are Hillary supporters so presumptious about the results of Mich? There are just so many holes in Hillary logic. Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain? Seems they are more interested in a brand name than a platform. Hello, Iraq War. Iran next. You think McCain will give you Health Care? Bush tax cuts are his answer for the economy. It really is about name brand. Obama gets the rap for a cult following, yet Clinton is the name brand so many people seem to goggle over. But why should I ask these questions? My fellow Americans, we the 300 other million Americans, we the normal people of society.. wake up and stop being drones. There is more to America than Pepsi and Coke. Bush and Clinton. So should Jeb run in 8 years after Hillary? Then that will give Chelsea 16 years to be old enough to be th next Clinton in the White House. Then, one of the Bush twins can run 8 years after that... this must be the secndary effects of too much tv and dumbed down society.

Posted by: Dave | March 30, 2008 6:48 PM

Anonymous@4:36P criticized Gov. Wilder's statement that "Hillary had eight years to construct a health care plan to cover all American's while her husband was the President... she failed. So why should we believe that she would be successful now." Okay, I get that you don't care much for Gov. Wilder, but nowhere in your rants do you explain why the above FACTS that Gov. Wilder put forth would not lead a logical person to question how HRC plans to do anything different on health care if she steals the nomination from Obama and somehow manages to get herself back in the WH. Your rant that "[Gov.] Wilder has no credibility to talk about the Clintons and claim they had their eight years" doesn't make much sense. Whether Gov. Wilder has "credibility" in your opinion or not does not refute the fact that the Clintons were indeed in the WH for 8 years, yet we do not have universal healthcare because her attempts to get it failed miserably. She couldn't do it then, so how will she do it now...especially if she steals the nomination and is fortunate enough to get elected POTUS? I think she'll have even fewer friends on the Hill on January 21, 2009 than she did when she first tried the healthcare initiative as First Lady.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 6:49 PM

Anyone who believes that Clinton's healthcare plan has a chance in hell of passing is seriously misguided. It won't get the support of the Senate. It would cause massive gridlock in the house. The whole healthcare debate is so phony, because Clinton is very well aware her plan would never pass. Its just a bone she throws out there for foolish supporters to latch onto.

Posted by: James | March 30, 2008 6:50 PM

I was refering to the Michigan 88 results (Jackson over Dukakis)

Posted by: Dave | March 30, 2008 6:51 PM

Obama supporters need to research Obama's background to have a better understanding of what Barack's belief system is. His "uniter" them of this campaign, is the antithesis of how he has managed his political life since he first became a community organizer in the south side of Chicago. Why are you all so blind to this? He is not who he says he is and that is one scarey thought. Like George Bush, the "compassionate conservative", we all know how people can say things that are so untrue. Barack is not a "uniter", but a political confrontationist. Democrats are destined to fail in this election if he is the nominee. His background will be well parsed to the Democrat's detriment. Everything that has been said about Hillary has been in the open for years. Much of it was half-truths or fiction. She survived her opponents vitriol, and has even received positive comments from some of the Senate Republicans that she HAS worked with. She has thrived in as a Senator. Barack, the unkown candidate, with a history of radicalism that is kept hushed by his handlers, is headed for a rough reality. Mainstream America will not support someone with his background. When given a choice between a known war hero as John McCain, and a questionable patriot such as Barack Obama, most people are going to side with the person who has fought for this country, not the person, who at times, seems to be at odds with the grandness and goodness that is the basic foundation of America.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 6:52 PM

"What am I missing here?

Posted by: PJTramdack | March 30, 2008 02:49 PM "

The part about the FL legislature being run by the Republicans and the Republican governor who changed the primary date after the DNC decision. Questions?

Excuses that is what the ex Clinton handlers now working for Obama seem to excel at. Don't want to be held accountable for a vote on Iran? Don't show up and then crucify the candidate who did. Don't want to be held accountable for non engineered campaign statements? Easy refuse to take questions at your appearances. Don't want to give a rock solid position on Reverend Wright? Go on vacation. Don't want to have a record on abortion? Vote present. There is a pattern here if you are willing to look.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | March 30, 2008 6:54 PM

>>Meldupree wrote: "The Clintonistas are becoming more shrill by the day and now Rendell got this ugly streak about him. I just popped another donation to the Obama campaign "

Good, use up all your money and those of Obama's other supporters trying to outspend Clinton 5-to-1 to beat her. I understand that Obama's been spending at the rate of $1.5 million a day in 2008 on this Democratic Primary contest.

And he still can't close the deal with Democratic voters or expand much past his base of blacks, college kids and ivory-tower liberals...

Posted by: AsperGirl | March 30, 2008 6:55 PM

AsperGirl,

So true. If Obama "was the man", he would have won this a long time ago considering the amount of money that he has had at his disposal.

Does anyone honestly believe that the record amount of money that he has garnered in this race has come from individual "small time" donors? Yeah, right. Barack's supporter's have harped about Hillary Clinton loaning her campaign 5 million dollars, but they don't question how Barack has been able to amass his political windfall. There is a minority of the population, when considering all people within the US population, who supports him. I am very suspicious of where he has obtained his record amount of political donations.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 7:02 PM

RetCombatVet,

Good post. Barack Obama has been very clever at not sticking his neck out for anyone to question his true beliefs. He played the system perfectly in order to not give anyone ammunition to use against him while he runs as president. I won't be fooled by his duplicity. He is a fraud.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 7:07 PM

Dave,

Anyone who believes Barack Obama is a "uniter" who will bring people together is foolish. He is a calculating politician who is a slick as they come.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 7:10 PM

Grace @4:50: "Hillary is a regular person who understand what people are going through and she will do everything she can to help us."

Really, then why won't she pay her bills? Many of the people whom she has stiffed so far during the course of her campaign are the very working Joes that she claims to be looking out for. It's an outrage! An example of her shameless behavior, she still has not paid some of the small, local business owners from Iowa who put on events for her campaign. So much for them! I guess since they're in little states they don't count and can wait for their money. They have mortgages to pay for, groceries to buy, car notes to pay, kids to send to college, employees to pay, etc. Wait a minute, it's not just the people in little states that she's dissing/stiffing; she still owes people in Ohio too! Instead of paying these hardworking folks with money that her equally hardworking supporters donated to her, she's out spending $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security. How much did she spend on Dunkin' Donuts? She owes that boob Mark Penn $2.7 million, that's on top of the over $4 million dollars they've already paid to him. Collectively, she owes $8.7 million dollars and is now dodging collection calls! I don't want my next nominee to be a deadbeat who doesn't pay her bills and makes the little man/woman, average, hardworking Joe/Jane suffer. Her campaign is on the verge of bankruptcy. Hopefully, she'll pay these hard-working people before she goes under! If HRC cannot manage the finances of a campaign, how on earth could she possibly handle the federal budget?!!! Ready on day one, I think not. HILLARY, PAY YOUR BILLS!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 7:19 PM

Grace @4:50: "Hillary is a regular person who understand what people are going through and she will do everything she can to help us."

Really, then why won't she pay her bills? Many of the people whom she has stiffed so far during the course of her campaign are the very working Joes that she claims to be looking out for. It's an outrage! An example of her shameless behavior, she still has not paid some of the small, local business owners from Iowa who put on events for her campaign. So much for them! I guess since they're in little states they don't count and can wait for their money. They have mortgages to pay for, groceries to buy, car notes to pay, kids to send to college, employees to pay, etc. Wait a minute, it's not just the people in little states that she's dissing/stiffing; she still owes people in Ohio too! Instead of paying these hardworking folks with money that her equally hardworking supporters donated to her, she's out spending $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security. How much did she spend on Dunkin' Donuts? She owes that boob Mark Penn $2.7 million, that's on top of the over $4 million dollars they've already paid to him. Collectively, she owes $8.7 million dollars and is now dodging collection calls! I don't want my next nominee to be a deadbeat who doesn't pay her bills and makes the little man/woman, average, hardworking Joe/Jane suffer. Her campaign is on the verge of bankruptcy. Hopefully, she'll pay these hard-working people before she goes under! If HRC cannot manage the finances of a campaign, how on earth could she possibly handle the federal budget?!!! Ready on day one, I think not. HILLARY, PAY YOUR BILLS!

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 7:20 PM

It seems like the Clinton's supporters would like to blame Senator Obama, the DNC and others for the mess in the state of Michigan and Florida. The blame should be place at the feets of the Governor of Michigan and the Michigan's politicans and the Florida's politicans who voted for moving up that primary. Correct me if I am wrong but I have not heard of any apologies from the Governor of Michigan and/or the Democratic leaders in Florida to the people of their states for putting them in this situation. They should also apologize to the DNC for violating their rules and also to the rest of the Democratic voters in the US who are now dealing with their stupidity. I will not blame anyone for this mess except the State of Michigan and the State of Florida.

It truly amaze me how gullible we as human being are. To read these emails about all of the lies that is being spread about Senator Obama and Senator Clinton that you all of spreading about fellow democrats are truly amazing.

To Senator Clinton and Senator Obama supporters, please destroy the Democratic Party with your pitiful and spiteful comments. Please vote for Senator McCann. Please show disrepect for others fellow Democrats. At the end what will be accomplished. I will tell you, the Republican will win the White House again in November and will rule the country for another four (4) years and maybe the Republican will hold on the the senate and house seats that are up for grab also. And where will the Democratic Party be. Left out in the cold. Crying and blaming everyone except ourselves for losing.

We will lose my fellow Democrat if we do not waking up and see what is happens.

Vote and support your candidate but do not tear apart the other. Remember they are both Democrats and each in his or her own way are representing the Democratic Party which is us.

Please to all take a step back and analyze what you are doing.

We do not want to cross a line where there is no turning back for years to come.'

The decision is ours. What are you going to do?

Posted by: rcalifornia | March 30, 2008 7:23 PM

brisbail @ 7:02: "There is a minority of the population, when considering all people within the US population, who supports him."

Hey, dumbass, if only a minority of the population were supporting Obama, he wouldn't be winning a MAJORITY of the popular vote!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 7:24 PM

Lieberman Bush"s Right Hand Loyalist --- belong to H.I.P.A.--an Israely Lobbying group with enormous wealth==of Republican Party together with CNBC. RUSS LIMBAR who are psychologically conditioning, viewers to vote for O'Bama as Democratic candidate opposed t0 Hillary
because O'Bama is a Muslim. and inexperienced because they Know Hillary with her health & with Bill Clintin by her side as the good will Ambassador to the world as they did from 1992 to 2000. Bill
clinton was loved around the world The world nations cheered him. DIPLOMACY is the answer FORCE is temporary. Democracy means THE PEOPLES WILL--respecting the rights of others -- do onto others as you want them to do onto you.--THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR BUSH HAS SPREAD HATE --TO DO SO IS SPREADING MORE HATE there are over 4000 Americans dead over 30,000 maimed who lost limbs and with brain disorders


Posted by: Lizete | March 30, 2008 7:24 PM

I would rather be a "racist" than be an idiot, if being labelled "racist" is the price that I have to pay to be right.

Posted by: Tony | March 30, 2008 7:31 PM

You would think that Randell was smart enough to know that Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination.

Are they republicans in disguise?

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 30, 2008 7:35 PM

You would think that Rendell was smart enough to know that Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination.

Are they republicans in disguise?

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 30, 2008 7:37 PM

Mackmusic78 @ 5:17: "Jimbo is a perfect name for you. Ignorance of the highest order. Clear out the empties from your filthy trailer. Take a second from making out with your sister and kill yourself. Thank you."

Amen. "Jimbo" writes like that crazy svreader.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 7:40 PM

Rendell is right. Michigan and Florida are two very big states that cannot be ignored. If these states have been included Clinton would be in the lead. Kerry has no right in saying what he is saying. He was a presidential candidate before and he knows how the campaigning is being done. You don't quit when you are in the thick of a fight.
Obama's lead is not credible at this stage because of the two states. The Democratic hierarchy should realize this more so the superdelegates. Clinton is getting stronger and the incoming primaries will prove this. This is what the Obamates are afraid of. They are insulting the voters in these states and plans to "disenfranchise" them by claiming that they are not relevant in the primaries because Obama already won.
You be the judge. The re conning is at hand.
Watch out for the 3-pt. buzzer beater shot.

Posted by: bobby | March 30, 2008 7:42 PM

To the guys AFRAID of Rev. Wright:

What are you scared of? The REVENGE of the "Black" Man.

DO you have something to fear?

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 30, 2008 7:48 PM

So, Obama's Health Care plan only has a mandate for parents to buy insurance for their children? Of all the people that would have a hard time paying for a mandate, would it not be people with families to support? Why does Obama constantly continue to call his health care plan "universal" when he knows it is nothing of the sort? When is someone going to ask Obama what greatness his church sees in racist Louis Farrakhan that made them select him to be their Man of the Year? When is somebody going to ask Obama if he agrees with his tight knit church that racist Louis Farrakhan (who Obama had a hard time rejecting in the last debate)is a man of greatness?

Posted by: tiredofit | March 30, 2008 7:51 PM

I agree Obama is calculating and as slick as they come.

Think about his getting very little accomplished on the "world stage" ? of Illinois politics and often voting "present".

This guy has audacity all right. Arrogance too. Name something of import that he has done. I'm waiting.........

He is very good at getting elected to a higher office without getting much done at the lower office.

He is a very skilled shell politician.

Posted by: andrew | March 30, 2008 7:53 PM

My, the posts are looking much better today. Grant it, people have their opinions, but more insightful. I definitely appreciate that, absolutely. Talking about the issues, look at it objectively without bias and making judgment looking at the picture. Very very interesting =)!

Interesting people.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 30, 2008 7:59 PM

Unquestioning support for Israel is the only issue driving the Campaign and the Israeli and Media Jews trust the Republicans because of Bush and his party's uninhibited encouragement of the genocidal destruction of the Palestinian people. McCain has already taken the obligatory, "Someday, Mr Sharon/Olmert, this will all be yours", helicopter flight over Greater Palestine, which will secure the Presidency for him as it did for Bush.

The Deaning of Hillary Clinton is complete and and Obama is next. Therefore, I doubt there will be a Democrat President in the foreseeable future.

If by some miracle, a Democrat should win, there is zero prospect for substantive change.

In spite of almost universal public outrage against Hoover and the Republicans plus an overwhelming election mandate, Roosevelt's every attempt to clean up the messes left behind involved a bitter struggle with many losses.

Since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Republican administrations have seized, one after another, powers not even conceived of by Hoover, powers illegal under the broadest interpretations of the constitution.

The institutions which should sustain our Democracy- the Military, Media and CIA- willingly serve their real Masters but sabotage what little we Democrats can accomplish during our rare reigns.

I am not hopeful.

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

Posted by: Monte Haun | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM

If Michigan and Florida were allowed to vote now, Clinton would be ahead. Gee, under that scenario, if Obama had more time to campaign in Texas, he could have won the primary vote as well. Or, better yet, if Hillary could go back in time and have some snipers in place, she wouldn't have been caught in a fabrication. Face facts people. Michigan and Florida had their chance to play by the rules and have a real impact on the nomination process, but they chose to break the rules and now their votes for the nominee are voided. Boo hoo. The whole nomination process is broken, and maybe the Democratic Party will see the wisdom of a winner-takes-all approach. That's why the Republicans have a nominee and the Democrats have "drama."

Posted by: Karl | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM

No, a great majority of us IS NOT AFRAID OF REV. WRIGHT. We just see him for what he is, a cheapskate of a Pastor who has used his congregation in the most despicable way and more than anything that Obama was connected to this ANTI-SEMITE, HATEFUL, BIGOT, ANTI-AMERICAN individual!!!!

So, bottom line is what is the impact of this on Obama's credibility, character and judgement? You see, Obama comes with almost no record of accomplishments. So, he makes promises and we are obligated to see what his associations bring to him as we need to make a decision.

Posted by: Hispana | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM

Richardson said that Clinton supporters fight dirty. What about the people that are now on Obama's team that used to support Clinton, like Richardson himself? Are they educating Obama about how to keep his head down and make it appear as if he does not play dirty?

Ted Kennedy can not run for president and can be nothing more than a Senator because of his past, what part of an Obama cabinet was he promised for his support?

Posted by: tiredofit | March 30, 2008 8:04 PM

Some mentioned the Fl/Mi issue. I personally don't think that those responsible of moving the dates forward without authorization to do so, should have been allowed back at their desks the following week. They definitely should be replaced pronto. I don't think it is either candidate's fault, but those individuals should definitely have some consequences. Absolutely. We definitely want a fair voting session. The entire issue served as an inconvenience to both candidates, I think.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 30, 2008 8:05 PM

Gary @ 5:49: The blind are those who have eyes but do not see; those who have ears but do not hear. The true context of the sermons have been posted around the comment sections on this site and many, many, many others. If all folks can harp on are Rev. Wright and his church, then, it is quite telling that you idiots have nothing else intelligent to say. Many intelligent Dems have turned the page on that subject and are back to focusing on what's happening with the economy, 4000 dead US soldiers in a senseless war, the housing market...you know the issues. Get with the program.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 8:05 PM

you have to see behind his word. he's a total fraud. he's been part of that church for 20 years. what kind of message do they preached there? Do you hear that kind of message from black preacher like T.D. Jakes or David Evans? 20 years of association with that kind of message, makes you wonder how 's his heart condition? how much lie he's hiding behind the mask he's wearing. WAKE UP AMERICA.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 8:09 PM

IMPASTOR WRIGHT IS OBAMA'S KARL ROVE, "A PO' BLACK MAN" DISGUISED AS "A RICH WHITE PEOPLE"!

Posted by: cheersdk | March 30, 2008 8:09 PM

I always heard that many "whites" were afraid the "blacks" would get in power and take revenge for the EVIL that had been done by "whites".

Don't fear Obama, Wright or Farrakan, all three are part "white", My brothers and sisters.

Don't let FEAR rule your life.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 30, 2008 8:16 PM

I see Pastor Wright as an imperfect pastor (as all pastors are-any pastor whom mentions he is perfect, by ALL means do remove yourself). Pastor Wright serves as truth of the fact, and I hope that people's eyes are opened. However, as much as I do disapprove of the snippets that have repeatedly been displayed through the media, I must say that I applaud this imperfect man for Obama having heard The Good News. Obama may love him, and disagree with him at the same time. That part of his character, is wonderful.

I like Obama's judgment (even as a fresher face) on The War. I like it in the beginning, and I like his judgment now. WE THE PEOPLE need To Bring Our People Home. I repeat: We Need To Bring Our People Home, right here back to America. We Need To Do That Soon. I am on the General Team to Help Make That Happen. Period.

Obama has the necessary requirements for presidency. That is all he needs. However, I see he has extra traits. He is my #1 choice. I like Hillary, and NOONE (for the sake of my people overseas plus the issues that I face along with many fellow Americans here) I will never vote for McCain. Period.

Did you hear McCain mix the groups up overseas, as he spoke directly to our military? Can you imagine their thoughts? I can't help but to wonder if they hope that We put someone else BUT McCain in that oval office. I respect his ability to be direct. However, he was very direct in the wrong direction on that issue, in my opinion at least.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 30, 2008 8:17 PM

Rendell is right. We Americans need solutions to our serious and challenging problems on health care, security, education, economic etc. our country is facing now. We need a hard worker, experience, and knowledgeable person to be president to work on this. Don't be fooled by sweet speeches that will not solve the problems.
What is Obama afraid of more elections in the different states? Is he afraid to be more exposed of his wrong doing that Americans still don't know!.Remenber Rev Wright!
The president of this country don't need another Bush, who the media created as a nice and Harvard graduate who knows economic but in reality is not hard worker and had no experience at all.
Catholics are for Hillary. The nuns are praying for her because of her universal health because are present they don't have.

Posted by: AE | March 30, 2008 8:17 PM

brisbail @ 7:02: "There is a minority of the population, when considering all people within the US population, who supports him."

Hey, dumbass, if only a minority of the population were supporting Obama, he wouldn't be winning a MAJORITY of the popular vote!

***********************************

He has a little more of the popular vote because a lot of the voting was done in caucus rather than primary. Not to mention he has been getting 90% of the black vote, and in Texas he even got that same 90% twice. Michigan and Florida have millions of voters that would certainly turn the popular vote in Hillary's favor, but alas, Obama dragged his feet so that he did not have to take the risk. Hopefully Hillary supporters will come out strong in the remaining states that have millions of voters rather than thousands, because without their input McCain will end up winning.

Posted by: tiredofit | March 30, 2008 8:18 PM

one free man,i'm afraid of a bunch of facist lunatics.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 30, 2008 8:21 PM

fascist- a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 30, 2008 8:27 PM

drs2008,another none answer. it ain't rev. wright running,its obama. and his following of black liberation theology. the germans turned the page on their christian leaders in the 30's. i could also "harp" on obama wanting to raise taxes but his black victimology is much more dangerous.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 30, 2008 8:28 PM

Obama2008,

You're kidding, right? Do you know anything about Barack Obama, and the reason why he decided to attend a church in the first place? He was a community activist in a black area of south Chicago, that was trying to get church pastors involved in his organizing attempts. The church pastors expressed their desire that if he was trying to get their help with his endeavors, then he should probably attend church (which he did not do up to that time) to give Barack some credibility or "street cred" as Barack described it. Does this sound like a man who "heard the Good news? I don't think so. It sounds like a calculated attempt by a man (Barack Obama)to gain favor from Christian leaders who also happen to be neighborhood leaders in south Chicago by attending a Christian house of worship. It should be looked at for what it is... one hand washing the other.

Geez, you would think that people would look into Barack's background, not just from this past few months, but from when he first entered the political arena. He is not who he says he is.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 8:29 PM

I am a 59 year old woman married to a 59 year old man. We are both Hillary Clinton supporters and we are both of the Caucasian race as well as both being college graduates. In fact we met in college. We have 2 grown children - a 34 year old son and a 31 year old daughter. Our 34 year old son is also a Clinton supporter and our 31 year old daughter is currently in her 3rd year of college. She is a democrat but has not thought about whom to support in the primaries. My husband and I have been life-long democrats. Initially we supported Clinton because she seemed to be the best person running on the Dems side to fight to get things done. Obama did not look bad but he had a very thin resume. Now I think it's more important than ever that Hillary receives the nomination. Obama does only look like "Washington politics as usual" but as "Washington politics as its worst."
First we had Rezko which is a book as of yet unfinished, then it was Nafta-gate. Top advisers to the Obama campaign apparently were meeting with Canadian officials and telling them not to worry about Obama was saying about Nafta in the campaign. It was just politics. This is of course is coming from the campaign promising they were above politics as usual and going to bring a fresh face to the political scene in Washington. Then after Obama lost Ohio to Clinton (despite major union endorsements) by a significant margin and Clinton beat him in the primaries in Texas where the Hispanic vote was supposed to swing towards him and the youth vote as well. Well, the Hispanics still loved Clinton in Texas and apparently Obama's legendary youth vote did not turn out in the record numbers like they were turning out for his speeches (kind of like the "Obama girl" remember her with the sexually suggestive video who did not bother to even vote for him when she had the chance.)
Then we have the Samantha Powers fiasco. This was no ordinary campaign worker. She was an important adviser in his campaign and headed up some important committee at Harvard - I think it was Human Rights or something to that effect so she was no ordinary lackey. She's over in Europe promoting her book and tells members of the European press, after their disastrous loss of Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island primaries that we lost the "f-----ing" primaries and that Hillary Clinton is a "monster." Her excuse for the language is that she thinks she is off the record.
However the aforementionned are just the warm-up acts. Enter on the stage, the "avuncular, good Rev. Wright. He is going to make Rezko, Nafta-gate, and Samantha Powers all together look like a walk in the park. Americans watch in disbelief, the Pastor of Senator Obama'a church for 20 years spew hatred and vitriol against white Americans, against Israel, G--damning America and Senator Obama's only response for why he sat there in that Church and did not leave or confront the Pastor on his hateful rhetoric was that his Pastor had done so much good in the community and that his Pastor was caught in a time warp. Now recently on the"View", after being pinned down by Barbara Walthers, he admits if Rev. Wright were still the pastor of his Church, he would no longer belong. My question, is why he sat there for 20 years and did nothing? We already have someone in the White House who continued to read a book to children after he had been informed our nation was under attack. Is this the kind of man we want in the White House? Someone who seems to have very little backbone.
Oh by the way there is further info. on good Rev. Wright. Apparently his church is giving him a mansion in an exclusive, gated golf community in the Chicago area as a retirement gift. This is the man who "d---" America and apparently suffered at the hands of wealthy, white oppressors. There's also an interesting story how the land was acquired for this mansion. It seems the "good" Rev. purchased the land for a litte over $300,000 a year or two ago and then sold it to his Church for about the same price. They then took out a $l0,000,000 loan out and started having the mansion built for him. The mansion is still under construction but on Fox cable news in the afternoon of March 28,2008, one could see that this truly is a mansion. The Church technically owns the property so I guess that is one drawback for the Rev. However the good news since it is Church property, he will owe no property taxes. The viewers were assured that this was all legal and that many Protestant churches reward their pastors, upon their retirement with big gifts. Maybe this is the answer to the mortgage crisis in this country. Follow the example of Rev. Wright and his Church. Declaring yourself a church and then getting the church to buy the home of your dreams, could go a long way to avoiding pesky things like taxes, house payments, and not to even mention those sky-rocketing interest rates on those mortgage loans.
Of course, the above does not change the "true believers in the gospel according to Obama." They just rev up their character attacks on both of the Clintons thinking if they call enough names and yell louder that somehow Mrs. Clinton will just disappear in to the ether but that's not going to happen. Hillary is a fighter and she along with her husband is "the come back kid." The more she is unfairly and unjustly attacked, the more I, my husband, my son, and our friends will fight for her. She has proven that she cares about ordinary Americans. Her husband, by the way, was the only Democratic President since FDR to serve more than one term in the White House and he left the White House with an over 60% approval rating by the American people. More Americans than ever began to realize the "American Dream" while he was President. We enjoyed good relationships with many other countries and were at peace. What's wrong with another Clinton in the White House? I say nothing at all. Hillary has my vote no matter what.

Posted by: Cathy Overton | March 30, 2008 8:37 PM

Brisbail @ 5:50: Wow, you must be a hard core Hillary supporter, because only they have the wonderful skills that you so beautifully displayed of taking the truth and facts and twisting and spinning them into something that is completely unrecognizable. You need medication...BTW you write an awful lot like that crazy svreader.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 8:37 PM

Brisbail @ 5:50: Wow, you must be a hard core Hillary supporter, because only they have the wonderful skills that you so beautifully displayed of taking the truth and facts and twisting and spinning them into something that is completely unrecognizable. You need medication...BTW you write an awful lot like that crazy svreader.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 8:37 PM

Governor Rendell talks out of both sides of his mouth. In today's nytimes.com Rendell supports a Clinton/Obama ticket (where have we heard this nightmare before) but states that unity is not a solution? Which is it?

Btw, any ticket with Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, George or Socks is a ticket this ex-GOPer turned Democrat will not support!

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 8:39 PM

onefreeman,better do your history again. facism's engine runs on crisis,change and the neverending revolution. who wants to control your personal property,your way of defense,and tax you into the ground. the other big facist keyword is unity. there is no individual. the state becomes you god. also,originally a liberal was a conservative and a progressive was a liberal.wilson was a progressive. then after he stared putting people in jail for dissenting the progressives got voted out. don't mistake me for trying to defend bush. not me. he should be impeached over immigration.mussolini and hitler were big fans of wilson and fdr.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 30, 2008 8:41 PM

Mrs. Overton, I did not realize that Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright was a presidential candidate or that his name was on the ballot. Thank you for your illuminating story.

Posted by: meldupree | March 30, 2008 8:43 PM

There isnt going to be any national health insurance until the war is decisively ended and troops withdrawn. The candidate's health plans have virtually no relevance to the first problem they will confront to end the war. At $120 billion a year and with problems looming in Medicare and Social Security you can kiss health care goodbye for a while. The people who keep touting Hillary's health plan are selling fools gold.

Posted by: Paul | March 30, 2008 8:47 PM

A sample of Obama's Judgment:

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.

Snip

Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said

Posted by: Anna | March 30, 2008 8:51 PM

brisbail @ 7:02: "
Hey, dumbass, if only a minority of the population were supporting Obama, he wouldn't be winning a MAJORITY of the popular vote!

Posted by: | March 30, 2008 07:24 PM

_______________________________________

Whoever wrote the above about me should learn how to read. I was refering to the total voting population of the United States, not the total number of voters who have voted in the Democratic primaries. In the Democratic primaries he does have a slight majority, especially since they will not count Florida or Michigan in the vote totals.

I guess the "dumbass" is the person that insults someone because he does not know how to comprehend what he has just read.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 8:53 PM

Does anyone know that Obama made up the story that his mother and father met in the Selma, Alabama march.

Know why it is not true?

Obama was born 4 years BEFORE the march.

What does this show.......

That Obama is willing to make up or twist stories to embellish his image and that he is as desperate to win as anyone.

Another point....

Obama gets as high as 90% of the black primary vote in some states.

Ladies....please... this is a last call.

You may have to wait decades before you get a chance to vote for a woman as well qualified as Hillary. You don't think so. Name one other woman who could be president today. How old is this country? How many years since a woman ran for president. How many years has a woman had the right to vote. How many years have women been oppressed?

I look at it this way. Hillary is a terrific candidate AND she has the great advantage of bringing the qualities of a womans perspective to the country's highest office.

Posted by: andrew | March 30, 2008 8:57 PM

fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Posted by: OneFreeMan | March 30, 2008 8:58 PM

I have a cousin that goes to Penn State and she said that they were bussing in people for the big rally from other states to make Obama look good. What a fraud he is.

Posted by: Janet P | March 30, 2008 8:58 PM

What a guy. First he try to encourage the Whites not to vote for Obama because he is Black and now he says it not important for the country to be united. He sounds real redneck to me. Shame on you Gov. Rendell.

Posted by: Sarah | March 30, 2008 9:06 PM

12thgenamerican-

I wasn't referring to Bush. How did you come to that conclusion? That was a cut and paste form Dictionary.com. The post was to the person that accused Obama, his pastor and Farrakan as fascist.

If Wright or Farrakan had ever advocated harming anyone they would have long been in jail. We all know that to be a fact. This government has never tolerated "black" men that has made threats to "whites". And as I said earlier, those three men have as much "white" blood as they do "black". But we all know any amount of "black" makes you ALL "black"

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 9:06 PM

Who in their right mind thinks that Barak Obama is actually going to unify this fractured, two party country? How absurd. Is the pro-life movement going to support Roe v Wade because Obama gives a good speech? Is the NRA going to support gun control? Are pro-business Republicans going to go along with higher corporate taxes? Get a grip.

Posted by: thetruth31 | March 30, 2008 9:09 PM

Why are Obama supporters so opposed to letting the voters of the remaining 10 primary states and Michigan and Florida actually voting before determining who the nominee is? Kind of sounds like the Obama folks really don't care about Democratic process, nor do they care to know who is really the winner of the primaries. In the end, it will be Hillary Clinton who is the people's choice!!

Posted by: mo897 | March 30, 2008 9:11 PM

JanetP-

I know you are not falling for that lie. Obama has won more primaries, more caucuses and more states. And he did not do it by busing people from other states.

Face the fact, he is winning because more people are voting for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 9:13 PM

Brisbail @ 5:50: Wow, you must be a hard core Hillary supporter, because only they have the wonderful skills that you so beautifully displayed of taking the truth and facts and twisting and spinning them into something that is completely unrecognizable. You need medication...BTW you write an awful lot like that crazy svreader.

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 08:37 PM
__________________________________________

drs2008 must be a paid blogger for Barack Obama. His (or her) posts are all over this blog. In some cases, drs2008 has not signed his handle to a post (like the one that called me a dumbass). That shows a lot of character, right drs2008? Your speculation about me being a different poster (svreader) is also stupid. Talk about being a hardcore supporter of someone, you should look in the mirror. The difference between me and you though, is that I research and base my posts on facts. You base your posts on personal attacks with no factual back up. If you don't like my post from 5:50pm, go do some research. You are the one twisting facts, and insulting other posters because they don't agree with you. The facts might not be recognizable to you because you have been the one that has been snowed by Barack Obama. In all likelihood, you have a psychological disorder related to the sames drugs that Barack Obama took during his drug years.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 9:17 PM

Janet P: Either your friends lied to you or you misunderstood them. Obama doesn't need to bus anyone into any town for any town hall meeting-speech-or rally, that's HRC. The accounts from numerous reporters (most recently Maureen Dowd) that so few of her supporters show up at her rallies that they have to organize the rooms to make them appear as though a lot more people are in there than there actually are. But, that's a part of the Clinton's fake reality. Maureen was merely a reporter at a recent HRC rally and one of HRC's people, who didn't know that she was a reporter, moved her up to the front of the room to pack it in. I think Maureen said that she was so close that she could make eye contact with HRC.

Now, busloads of Obama supporters have gone to PA to help with the grassroots efforts of his campaign. Maybe that's what your friends were talking about. But, he definitely does not need to do that to pack his rallies.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 9:26 PM

Re: Bob's Comments

I read Bob's long diatribe, regarding his disdain for BO. But his attempt in justifying his "Jewish" heritage reeks of the same vitrol he is denouncing BO for. For example, he begins by attempt to 'manipulate'our thought be outlining his previoius credential, and the fact that he has many friends, whom are not of his particular sect (this is the same as Whites telling me all the time I have many black friends); then, his attempt at justifying his "closet" racism by appealing to Israel and it many issues, stating BO is a "threat to Israel" - poppycock, and in laymen's term - Bulls*it!

As a 51 year old American of African decent (Negroid, that is), it is individuals like Bob that we AA detest the most; using religion (Judaism), or race (Jewish), as a facade to mask your prejudices! We're not stupid, Bob!! Your vain attempt - or should I say justifications - for not wanting to vote for BO, simply because he is a threat to Israel is your perogative. But I humbly suggest that you NOT use the state of Israel, as your reason. G_D has taken care of Israel since it's 'recreation', and he promises, even in "our bible" (the King James version) that he will continue to do so.

In closing, I suggest you search your heart, and ask "your G_D to give you insight and clarity on why you REALLY feel this way.

Godspeed!

Steff, Houston

Posted by: Steff, Houston, TX | March 30, 2008 9:36 PM

If Obama is the great uniter why are his supporters so vicious? Their attacks on Hillary and Bill are worse than the GOP swift boaters.

The Cult of Obama members will say anything, ANYTHING, that they think will hurt Hillary and help OBama.

Juding OBama by his supporters he lacks the character to be president!

Posted by: wj_phillips | March 30, 2008 9:37 PM

Rendell's a straight shooter -- some people just prefer sugar-coating. Obama appeals overwhelmingly to the types who've been in a political coma for the last 4 or 5 years. Like, the 2006 elections never happened for these people. Santorum is still in the Senate, Rumsfeld is still at the Pentagon, etc. Newsflash: we ain't runnin' against GWB anymore.

Posted by: dm_frank | March 30, 2008 9:44 PM

@Cathy Overton,

This isn't about Pastor Wright at all. Some of you rednecks(who probably are over 40 yrs old) are looking for anything to justify your racist, redneck ways. Next week if it snows, you will probably blame that on Obama also. Pastor Wright is bringing the real hatred to the forefront. Otherwise he could easily be dissmissed as a ranting lunatic. He is just the conduit for the simmering, backward and ignorance of the past and present. Get a life hater.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | March 30, 2008 9:54 PM

man, there's a lot of really sick people out there.

Posted by: Alan in SF | March 30, 2008 9:56 PM

Obama can rally 20,000-25,000 local people to his contacts with the American people. In Seattle he packed the Key Arena with over 20,000 people and another 15,000 people who could not get inside listened outside via loud speakers to his campaign message, I know cause I was there. He continues to draw a croud whereever he goes.

Posted by: jac | March 30, 2008 9:59 PM

If I didn't sign my "handle," brisbail, it certainly was inadvertent. Your illogical, idiotic, and erroneous diatribes against Obama clearly demonstrate that you are in fact a dumb ass!

BTW, I did my research before I reached my conclusion about you. I read through the Agitator article before I responded to you, every word on all 13 pages of it, and many of your crazy posts. I did not scan the article for the words that appear most inflammatory, skip over the words before and after them because they were not important (which it appears you did in your rant), and draw the illogical conclusion that "His philosophy is one of confrontation and division, not one of working together for the common good," when there is nothing in the article you rely on for your comment to support your divisive, inflammatory statement. Your rant was a classic Clintonian trick of taking the truth and facts and twisting and spinning them into something that is completely unrecognizable. I stand by my earlier comment: You are a dumb ass and, if you believe that what you read in the article reflects your conclusion, then, that's demonstrable evidence that you do in fact need medication!

Posted by: drs2008 | March 30, 2008 10:01 PM

To the no name poster (drs8000 most likely), Maureen Dowd is so anti-Clinton in her columns. What makes you think that I would believe her over someone who actually attends Penn State?

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 10:06 PM

Wow, the Hillary supporters are just as negative and vile that she is. Look folks, let's take a step back for a second. Hillary has HUGE negatives.

For one, let's think about if she actually won the nomination. She lines up against McCain who is a honored POW and respected war veteran, then they bring up her Bosnia lie(because that is exactly waht it IS), the republicans will LIGHT HER UP on that alone. Secondly, she failed on universal healthcare when it was her signature platform while in the WH. Third, she talks about being able to relate to the middle class when she grew up in a very afluent household that were WELL OFF.

I'm sorry, but she does not identify with me, the common man of today's america. She runs a bad spotty campaign, and then throws out a pity card so that we can take her up on. Every minute she reminds us that "I'm the 1st woman who can make history..." When she should be more concerned w/the issues of america than making history. Sorry but she's lost my confidence when her lie was uncovered and her campaign's dirty tactics in the last 2 months. She's done, couple that with the fact that she does not carry any majority of voters for the party and she has already sealed her fate in the general election. Furthermore, Hillary supporters need to realize that its HER fault that she's lost so many caucuses and primaries. She had the commanding ablity to win, with out any thought of a guy like Obama. What did she do, bask in her arrogance until Iowa lit her tail up, and she realized that "Wow, this is really a campaign to run for the presidency"...

Wake up and face the facts. You must do the work to receive credit, not just be the spouse of a popular president.

Posted by: dknite | March 30, 2008 10:09 PM

drs8000, Then I guess you read with your eyes closed. That's a good trick. Barack used and currently uses the techniques that were created by Saul Alinsky who argued that the most effective means to an end are whatever will achieve the desired end. He was a confrontational philosophy, and nothing that you write will ever change that FACT. You are the one twisting and distorting facts because I posted something critical,but factual, about Saint Obama.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 10:17 PM

Posted by: alison | March 30, 2008 02:36 PM said: there are rules for a reason -

Hillary Clinton signed the pledge and now wants to change the rules

This tells you all you need to know about the Clintons

The only "rules" they observe are the ones they make
--------------------------
Did it ever occur to you that Clinton and Obama didn't have a choice when they agreed to the rules? If they had said they wouldn't agree, people like you would criticize them for refusing to follow the rules. Both of them were put in a no-win situation. The DNC should never have let the situation happen that only 48 of our 50 states' votes count. Even the Republicans are seating half of their Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention. What kind of a leader party leader is Howard Dean that he wouldn't even agree to do that?


Posted by: HowardK | March 30, 2008 10:21 PM

Rendall has a screw loose - - dough brain.

Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay billsBy: Kenneth P. Vogel March 30, 2008 09:57 PM EST
Hillary Rodham Clinton's cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months -- freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles. A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community -- and anyone else who will listen -- to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter. Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton's inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills." Just like with other businesses, it's common for campaigns to carry unpaid bills from month to month, but in Clinton's case, it also could serve a strategic purpose. The New York senator's presidential campaign ended February with $33 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $11 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn't. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.By contrast, if you subtract Obama's $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he'd still be left with $31 million. The presidential campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain reported $4.3 million in debt at the end of February, but only $1.3 million of that was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. The rest was a bank loan, which the campaign says it paid off last week. It's not just the size of Clinton's debts that's noteworthy. It's also that her unpaid bills extend beyond the realm of high-priced consultants who typically let bills slide as part of the cost of doing business with powerful clientele whose success is linked to their own. Some of Clinton's biggest debts are to pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn, who's owed $2.5 million; direct mail company MSHC Partners, which is owed $807,000; phone-banking firm Spoken Hub, which is waiting for $771,000; and ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who's owed $467,000. Clinton also reported debts more than one month old to a slew of apolitical businesses and organizations, large and small, in the states through which this historically expensive Democratic primary campaign has raged. She owed Iowa's Sioux City Art Center Board of Trustees $3,500 for catering and venue costs, New Hampshire's Winnacunnet Cooperative School District $4,400 in event costs, Qwest $24,000 for phone service, various branches of the Iowa-based supermarket chain Hy-Vee $15,000 for food, beverages and catering, and $7,700 to Ohio and Massachusetts branches of the theatrical stage employees' union, for equipment costs. In fact, about a third of the nearly 700 individual debts Clinton reported at the end of February were for various types of "event expenses," including $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security. Event production is important to big-time presidential campaigns. It shapes how candidates look and sound, not just to the thousands of people who turn out to campaign speeches and rallies but also to the millions who catch snippets of them on television. And word is getting around that Clinton's campaign does not promptly pay those who labor to make her events look good, said an employee of the event production company Forty Two of Youngstown, Ohio. "I feel insulted by the way that the campaign treated this company and treated us personally," said the employee, who did not want to be named talking about a client. The Clinton campaign paid the company $16,500 to set up a stage, press riser, sound system and backdrops at a Youngstown high school last month for a raucous union rally, where an aggressive Clinton stump speech drew thunderous applause. But the Clinton campaign has yet to pay Forty Two for two other February events, and the employee said the campaign has stopped returning phone calls, e-mails and didn't respond to a certified letter. "We worked very hard to put together these events on a moment's notice and do absolutely everything to a 't' to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign," said the employee. "Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails." Forty Two also has done events for Obama's campaign, which has paid its bills promptly, according to the employee. FEC records show Obama's campaign paid the company $18,500. Show Tyme Exhibits, another Youngstown event production company, has produced political events for years and had never had problems getting paid before Clinton, according to owner Jim Phillips. He said he's still waiting for a payment for setting up the sound system and stage for Clinton's February tour of a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio. "It was only $607, but I'm a small guy; I could use that," said Phillips, adding, "Everyone I can tell, I do tell about it. You tell somebody something bad about somebody, they tell 10 other people." Both Phillips and the Forty Two employee said they voted for Clinton in Ohio's March 4 primary, which she won handily, but regret their votes and are reluctant to work for her campaign again. Their sentiments aren't universal in the event production world, though. At the end of January, Clinton owed $38,000 to ACS Sound and Lighting of Columbia, S.C. But the company was paid in full last month and is planning to do events for Clinton in other states, according to manager Troy Gwin. "We don't have any problem with them," he said. "I'd continue to do business after the primaries if she is the nominee. I would love to." And Tony Galarza, director of the Missoula, Mont., branch of a national event production company, remained committed to staging an April 6 Clinton fundraising brunch at a local hotel even after a colleague in his company e-mailed a list of Clinton's campaign debts. Galarza said he's confident Clinton will pay his company but admitted he was surprised to see so many event production companies among the campaign's creditors. "Once I looked at those numbers, I realized how important to our economy nationally these elections are," he said. "Just the sheer numbers listed there were immense."Editor's note: An earlier version of this story included an incorrect figure for the Clinton campaign's cash on hand at the end of February.

Posted by: Dee | March 30, 2008 10:26 PM

Fast Eddy Rendell is right once in a while.
But he was wrong to try and sell the toll highways to foreigns. He is wrong to allow Billary incompany to divide our party. He is wrong to enable the Clintons to use racial code words on Sen. Obama without rebuking them. He is wrong to allow distructive and divisive forces to hamper chances of the senate and house to increase their numbers all for personal gain. It is wrong Gov. Rendell to encourage the Clintons to hold the Democratic Party hostage so the big $$$ can cut a deal for access to an Obama white House. Ed Rendell is as sleezy as the Clintons. Not once has he shown conduct of a senior statesman. But I forgot that you are of the same mentality as Carvell and the lot. When it comes to minorities,treat them anyway you feel like at the time. Your as finished as the clintons Fast Eddy who would sell his state for a few dollars more. You are so yesterday.

Posted by: All Seeing | March 30, 2008 10:33 PM

Fast Eddy Rendell is right once in a while.
But he was wrong to try and sell the toll highways to foreigns. He is wrong to allow Billary incompany to divide our party. He is wrong to enable the Clintons to use racial code words on Sen. Obama without rebuking them. He is wrong to allow distructive and divisive forces to hamper chances of the senate and house to increase their numbers all for personal gain. It is wrong Gov. Rendell to encourage the Clintons to hold the Democratic Party hostage so the big $$$ can cut a deal for access to an Obama white House. Ed Rendell is as sleezy as the Clintons. Not once has he shown conduct of a senior statesman. But I forgot that you are of the same mentality as Carvell and the lot. When it comes to minorities,treat them anyway you feel like at the time. Your as finished as the clintons Fast Eddy who would sell his state for a few dollars more. You are so yesterday.

Posted by: All Seeing | March 30, 2008 10:34 PM

brisbail I find your statement relating to Senator Obama lacking. I have thorougly researched the Senator and he has an excellent background in meeting the test for my vote. I find your questioning my judgement on who I choose to support disrespectful. I very much respect and admire everything that Senator Obama beliefs and the work that he has done, including all of his personal accomplishment and proud that he will be the next President of the United States of America - - my Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 30, 2008 10:36 PM

I worked for Kerry in '04. My candidate in the primaries was Clark, but I actually came to like the guy. I flew down to Florida on the day of the election to help him out (from NYC and back that night to vote)- aside from multiple trips to Pennsylvania, phone banking, etc. I never got why people found hims so fake.

Now I get it. There he was on TV saying things that were just ridiculous. Universal coverage as a "non-starter" in the senate? Michigan and Florida can be written off- not giving them a say in who is the nominee and then expecting them to vote with the party? This is the same person who ran in '04? And then he started to hurl insults at McCain and his record- now I surely don't want McCain as president- but Kerry offered McCain the VP slot, didn't he? Doesn't anyone remember?

I think that the two MA senators should basically shut up. Edward screwed the party in '80 leading to Carter's defeat and doesn't have the best history with woman- maybe if Hillary took a car ride with him on Martha's Vinyard... John is so disingenuous it hurts to have been such a believer. Oh well.

Leon

Posted by: NYC Leon | March 30, 2008 10:45 PM

"Barack has used his organizing capabilities wisely in this nominating race. He is adept at knowing how to manipulate public opinion, and how to assuage voter's anxiety about voting for him. I can only hope that the remainder of the public that has not voted in this nominating process consider his "hardball" political background, which is the antithesis of his current "uniter" marketing before they cast a vote for him. He has successfully portrayed Hillary Clinton as a negative campaigner, when he himself adeptly practices the same politics of personal destruction. After all, it all about his power and his self-interest. A zebra cannot change his stripes."

WOW! All that unfair advantage without the 35 years of experience! You'd think he'd disqualify himself for being too good at this stuff, like caucuses! But wasn't it Hillary who bragged about her "35 years of experience?"

What is it you people are looking for, anyway? Hillary has proven to run a completely incompetent campaign, going from an "insurmountable" lead to behind, insulting many or most of the traditionally Democratic bases along the way, then whining about being discriminated against? GET A LIFE!

Posted by: tom | March 30, 2008 10:51 PM

"Here's the link.

news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Hey svreader; you've been posting that link for weeks now, trying to get attention to the little peon who everybody fired and his pathetic, self-pitying story! Get a life!

Posted by: tom | March 30, 2008 10:56 PM

Okay,Rendell; I'll bite: What IS enough, then?

Posted by: tom | March 30, 2008 10:58 PM

brisbail I find your statement relating to Senator Obama lacking. I have thorougly researched the Senator and he has an excellent background in meeting the test for my vote. I find your questioning my judgement on who I choose to support disrespectful. I very much respect and admire everything that Senator Obama beliefs and the work that he has done, including all of his personal accomplishment and proud that he will be the next President of the United States of America - - my Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: | March 30, 2008 10:36 PM

______________________________________

Another no-name post (probably ds8000) If it is you, what nerve. You call me a "dumb ass", but you are insulted by something I have written, which by the way, did not include any personal attack. You are sooo one way. You question everybody that disagrees with you, then insult people, but you get insulted when someone disagrees with you, even when there are no personal attacks such as what you do? Grow up. Learn respect, and then you may receive respect.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 11:01 PM

Hillary is fighting for the nomination? Darned right, you go girl! We want a president who will fight for what she believes in...

Barack is fighting for the nomination? See how that just proves how self-centered, conniving and greedy he is!

Hillary and Barack both know some pretty unsavory characters. Oh, horrors, that our president-to-be might actually know someone who does real politics! ... Huh???

Is anyone aware that Bush has killed over a million people in Iraq; has killed over 4,000 US servicemen; has trashed principle after principle of our Constitution; has run our national economy into a death spiral; is running our global environment into another death spiral; has shorn the nation of any inkling of international credibility; and has prevented any semblance of positive social change while in office; all while bringing in billions for his tiny handful of richy-rich oil&mil cronies?

Is anyone aware that John McCain is promising to stay the course on essentially all aspects of the Bush project?

Give me Obama OR Clinton. NOW! I'd prefer Barack (he makes fewer enemies), but I'll take Hillary as a second choice. Either way, the Bush project must be stopped as quickly as possible!

Posted by: John from NC | March 30, 2008 11:05 PM

And I think if Michigan and Florida actually voted again, Senator Clinton would come out on top of the popular vote." -------And if Florida voted again, President Gore would not have lied us into Iraq.---------------
"[W]hat Democrats need to focus on now is who can galvanize a grass-roots movement that holds Washington accountable," Kerry said. "That's the fundamental issue of this campaign."-----------That was the fundamental issue in 2004, John. Which side of the issue were you on then? Okay, but after that? And then?

Posted by: Percy F. Lage, Oklahoma | March 30, 2008 11:07 PM

"What a monumental mistake would it not be if the right of the citizens in Michigan and Florida to make their voice heard was thwarted."

Maybe their respective Democratic committees might have thought of that before they defied the rules set down by the national committee?

They're not "disenfranchised;" they can still vote in the actual election. They just opted out of the selection process for delegates, which is a private matter within the Democratic Party.

Posted by: tom | March 30, 2008 11:09 PM

** They're not "disenfranchised;" they can still vote in the actual election. They
** just opted out of the selection process for delegates, which is a private matter within the Democratic Party.
** Posted by: tom

OK Tom, we'll see how that interpretation resonates.

Your view is not even legally solid, the courts have often intervened in Primary Elections. What do you suppose all the elction laws are about if this is just a private matter?

but more to the point, the right to vote is a shared value, not just a technicality.

Posted by: HuckFinn | March 30, 2008 11:16 PM

WOW! All that unfair advantage without the 35 years of experience! You'd think he'd disqualify himself for being too good at this stuff, like caucuses! But wasn't it Hillary who bragged about her "35 years of experience?"

What is it you people are looking for, anyway? Hillary has proven to run a completely incompetent campaign, going from an "insurmountable" lead to behind, insulting many or most of the traditionally Democratic bases along the way, then whining about being discriminated against? GET A LIFE!

Posted by: tom | March 30, 2008 10:51 PM
----------------------------------------
Another post from a pro-Obama hater. I disagree with your contention that Hillary doesn not have the support of most of the Democratic base. Hillary has held most of the Democratic base together. Besides the black vote, which overwhelmingly supports Obama, and some of the upper income Democrats, independents, and a portion of the white male vote, liberals, and young voters, it has been shown that Hillary has typically gained the majority of the women's vote, those who call themselves Democrats (the real base I would think), union households,lower income voters, those voters with less education (which doesn't mean they are stupid like Obama supporters like to say), Latinos, and elderly voters (who are much more likely to vote than young voters).
Your sentence about discrimination doesn't make any sense they way it was written? What did you mean by that sentence?

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 11:24 PM

brisbail,you know your okay when you make blood shoot out of their eyes like that. irrational exuberence combined with bad judgment and bad company.

Posted by: gary | March 30, 2008 11:25 PM

Tom will never agree to have a fair primary election in Florida or Michigan because he knows that Hillary has more support in each state. I am incredulous as to why the Howard Dean and Barack Obama's campaign can sit there and allow the disenfrachisement of the voters in Florida and Michigan. I don't give a $hi% about the so-called arbitrary rules the King Dean pushed to prevent states from voting earlier than he wanted them to. Democrat voters went to the polls in record numbers, even though candidates did not campaign in the states of Florida or Michigan. The voters were eager to have a say in this election and they are basically being told that they don't matter. It will be nice to see what will happen when our votes do matter in the general election. As a Floridian, Obama can kiss off. I will never vote for anyone who has tried to suppress my vote.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 11:30 PM

I'm sorry gary, but I don't understand your comment or who you are referring to in your comment. Can you explain yourself better?
Thank you

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 11:32 PM

the dumbass remark.

Posted by: gary | March 30, 2008 11:36 PM

Got you. Thanks. Whoever that person is, he (or she) insults people all the time, and then he has the gall to complain about being insulted because I disagree with him (but I do not use insults like him to do it).

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 11:40 PM

brisbail I find your statement relating to Senator Obama lacking. I have thorougly researched the Senator and he has an excellent background in meeting the test for my vote. I find your questioning my judgement on who I choose to support disrespectful. I very much respect and admire everything that Senator Obama beliefs and the work that he has done, including all of his personal accomplishment and proud that he will be the next President of the United States of America - - my Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by: | March 30, 2008 10:36 PM
____________________________________

One further comment, I have never agreed with everything about a particular politician. Although I support Hillary, I don't agree with every one of her beliefs. For someone to write that she support EVERYTHING that Obama has done, etc. tells me that particular person is not being completely honest.

Posted by: brisbail | March 30, 2008 11:45 PM

I'm shocked at the level of hatred and personal disgust on this board. I'm a Democrat and while I support Obama, if Hillary manages to secure the nomination, I will vote for her over 100 year old McCain and his drive for a 3rd term of Bush policies. Grow up, you pathetic whiners!

Posted by: Vincent F | March 31, 2008 12:01 AM

svreader, for my own entertainment, I went to the Houston Chronicle piece you posted by Spivak. A whiney, pathetic piece of journalism. Sounds like a crybaby with a boo-boo on his knees. Who does Spivak remind everyone of? (smile, svreader)

Posted by: meldupree | March 31, 2008 12:33 AM

Dear Senator Clinton:

There is nothing wrong with staying in the race, as Mike Hickabee did though he had no mathematical chance to win. And there is nothing wrong with staying in the race and talking about real policy issues, that may be important, such as Iraq, health care or economici policy.

There is, however, a real problem with remaining in the race and having you, your husband and/or your campaign surrogates continuously attack the character, credibility, and charisma of the other democratic candidate.

I am not a political insider, not a politicl pro, but I am a just democratic, a democrat who wants a democrat to win the white house in 2008...why don't you?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 31, 2008 12:38 AM

Comparing Huckabee to Clinton is like comparing Nader to Gore. Huckabee was soooo far behind McCain in the Republican contest. Hillary and Barack are almost tied, with a handful of states and Puerto Rico still needing to vote. This race needs to go to the end. It also needs to take into account the votes of Michigan and Florida. I revote would be ideal, but for some reason, no one will allow it. I don't understand it. There is plenty of time to have it happen considering that the last primary elections occur in the beginning of June, and it is not even April 1st. Hillary is in it to win it, just as Obama is. Both are intelligent people, but one is a "doer" and one is a "wannabe doer" who has voted present on contentious issues when he was in the state legislature of Illinois. I'll take the "doer" over the one who wouldn't stick his neck out for fear of alienating people who otherwise might support his presidential bid.

There are real differences between Clinton and Obama.

Posted by: brisbail | March 31, 2008 1:08 AM

The mentality of black and white men are more alike than the mentality of women compared to men. If you really want change you should vote for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama has never ever been talking about gender and discrimination towards people based on their sex rather than their individual merits. I think that he and his followers (young men as well as young and older women) are very strong supporters of male chauvinism, which refers to the belief that males are superior to females. Clinton is stronger, more intelligent and more experienced than Barack Obama.

Posted by: Circus | March 31, 2008 5:44 AM

I read Carville's use of Richardson's endorsement as a rather weak attempt to keep his punditry credentials visible enough to keep him on as guest commentator on the TV networks.

Posted by: chocochuckles | March 31, 2008 7:26 AM

To the comment that Rev. Wright is not running for President. That is very true, but we are to a certain extent judged by the "company we keep" and when that "company" extends for 20 years and you consider that man your spiritual mentor, it certainly warrants another look don't you think? However I appreciate your polite objection. You do the Obama supporters good!
As to the other comment - you know not what you say. If you bothered to read my post, I said I and my husband are both 59 years old and we have two grown children. No we are not red-necks at all. I think our friends and family would find that laughable! We are life-long Democrats and I have campaigned and voted for Democrats since my college days when I first campaigned for Senator Robert Kennedy when he ran for the Democratic primaries in the Nebraska primaries. A short time later he was assassinated in California which for me was a great tragedy because I thought he would have made a great President. I have always voted for the Democratic candidates at the national level and usually at the state and local levels. In college, I protested against the Vietnam War and had an African-American roommate and several African-American friends. We got along well together, socialized, talked and just did things together like college kids do. Before I met my husband, I went out with a couple of African-American young students who attended the men's college. I attended the women's college. This was at a time when there were very few African-American students on either campus.
After college, my husband and I married, raising our children in an urban area of a large mid-western city. Our children attended our Parish parochial school near where we lived. Because this Church and school were in the mid-town area of the city, most of the student body were African-American students. Many of my children's friends were African-American, including my son's best friend in grade school who still keeps in touch to this day with our family and we ( because of his long friendship with our son) think of him as a member of the family.
I volunteered many hours at the school while my children were there, as a roommother, school board member, den mother , etc. I worked with other parents - both white and black and we were all friendly and respected each other. No one called each other "racist." In fact one of the school principals, at my children's elementary school (a white man) married an African-American young woman and I don't remember hearing any comments one way or the other. He was beloved by all and his wife would be treated with the same respect.
Later I went on to work for Catholic Charities. Practically all of my co-workers were African-American as well as some of my supervisors. Again, there was mutual respect and kindness shown toward each other.
Now if the above qualifies as "racist" and "red-neck", then some people have a rather unusual interpretation of those words. I would remind the commenter who called me those names that you can have serious objections to Senator Obama's candidacy and not be "racist" or "red-neck" at all. Think before you speak might be wise the next time you decide to slander another person.

Posted by: Cathy Overton | March 31, 2008 1:49 PM

to cathy overton..
I understand your support for Hillary.....but she is not gonna win ....florida and michigan are not gonna count.....so you say you are a democrat...but you won't vote because your candidate is going to loose to someone who's only fault is that his preacher tends to be somewhat unappreciative of a system that has degraded the whole existance of the preachers people.....now thats only half of Obama people....look at it this way you not voting; being a democrat and all....labels Obama as a racist for something that he has not agreed with.....and the reason is that if the media had more than the 45 seconds of madness then you would of heard it by now....so when you do the calculations; you seem fairly educated ( not the Typical Hillary supporter)lol.....just goofin ......that doesn't really make him racist he said some very insensitive stuff yes......to call him racist.....not really ....he didn't put his hood on in service..........so you should take your Clinon jersey off.......put on your democrat warm-up and vote for the democrats when its time to win the election....and last but not least......if you cannot find it in your heart to vote for Obama....vote for the 19 and 20 year old that are loosing life and limb for a war that is all about oil instead of the weapons of mass destruction...like eveyone thought.....Democrats 08

Posted by: change 08 | March 31, 2008 3:10 PM

'Mommy Mommy, how come Barack Obama and his church are allowed to make fun of me?'

'Well, honey, he's a senator.' 'He can break the law and violate Article 14 of the Constitution and make fun of your skin color and gender and it's ok.' 'Look honey, you're different.' 'your hair is different, your nose is different and your mouth is different.' 'You just don't fit in.'

"But that doesn't make me feel very good Mommy.'

'Don't worry Honey, someday they'll enact laws to protect ALL people so you won't be made fun of and ALL people will be treated equally.'

'When will that be Mommy/"

I don't know Honey, .... Let's ask the Delegates and super Delegates.

DELEGATES & SUPER DELEGATES - WHEN WILL THAT BE?!?!?

The child needs your moral reasoning.

Posted by: rmason1 | April 1, 2008 11:57 AM

Wrong! it's EVERYTHING to do with Pastor Wright and the last 20 years of behavior on the part of a presidential candidate: you are what you behave!

@Cathy Overton,

This isn't about Pastor Wright at all. Some of you rednecks(who probably are over 40 yrs old) are looking for anything to justify your racist, redneck ways. Next week if it snows, you will probably blame that on Obama also. Pastor Wright is bringing the real hatred to the forefront. Otherwise he could easily be dissmissed as a ranting lunatic. He is just the conduit for the simmering, backward and ignorance of the past and present. Get a life hater.

Posted by: mackmusic78 | March 30, 2008 09:54 PM

'Mommy Mommy, how come Barack Obama and his church are allowed to make fun of me?'

'Well, honey, he's a senator.' 'He can break the law and violate Article 14 of the Constitution and make fun of your skin color and gender and it's ok.' 'Look honey, you're different.' 'your hair is different, your nose is different and your mouth is different.' 'You just don't fit in.'

"But that doesn't make me feel very good Mommy.'

'Don't worry Honey, someday they'll enact laws to protect ALL people so you won't be made fun of and ALL people will be treated equally.'

'When will that be Mommy/"

I don't know Honey, .... Let's ask the Delegates and super Delegates.

DELEGATES & SUPER DELEGATES - WHEN WILL THAT BE?!?!?

The child needs your moral reasoning.

Posted by: rmason1 | April 1, 2008 12:14 PM

Obama and his supporters don't want any re-vote in Florida and Michigan because of how that re-vote may affect his present standing in the race. Iam surprised that so many people agree with him and are ignoring the bigger picture of what is happening.

Instead of worrying about the candidates, we all should be worrying about the fact that voters in two of our sister states are being stripped of their right to get their votes counted because "they broke the rules."

Why in the world did the leaders of both parties let this ridiculous situation happen in the first place? If that had happened in my state, I would be furious. People who think it's ok that two of our states are excluded from having their votes counted just aren't thinking. Those voters did nothing to be penalized for -- it was their party leaders that instigated this nonsense. If I lived in either of those states, I would make sure that those bums get tossed out in the next election or however long it takes to get them out. All the voters in the 48 states should be up in arms about what their leaders did to two of our sister states. For the voters who think it's ok that those two states get penalized for "breaking the rules", I assume if that happens in their state in some future election, they will not complain and will agree that it's ok that they lost the right to have their vote counted.

For me, I am looking at the bigger picture. I am not willing to disregard Florida and Michigan in this presidential election by worrying about how their votes will affect the candidate I support.

Posted by: Rich | April 1, 2008 12:33 PM

I never thought that I would live to see the day when the job description for The President of The United States read: NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY. Funny, I didn't realize that the people of this country were in so much turmoil to the extinct that their "suffering" would take precedence over the state of the country itself. To think that one man can somehow "unify" this country--meet everyone's needs, which in itself is a full-time job is ridiculous. Something's gotta give, and I hate to think of it being our country. People who are crying for this "change" sound like spoiled and bratty children, only thinking of their own wants instead of thinking about what this country needs. The country doesn't need another set of unfamiliar incapable hands at its helm. People should be reminded that "Talk is cheap?" and "Be careful of what you wish for..."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 1, 2008 7:43 PM

What would you expect from those who postulate, with a straight face, that the will of the voters need not be reflected by the superdelegates?

Posted by: gmundenat | April 3, 2008 2:29 PM

Lieberman will follow who ever wants to stay one hundred years or more in Irak. He doesn't care about America's politics, what he cares about is Israel and its protection.
He is not affiliated to a party in America, because he is a Zionist.
He is travelling overseas with McCain, to tell him what to do and say, because McCain has no idea about economics, but also he has no idea about foreign affairs, and who is what.

Posted by: sam | April 6, 2008 3:23 PM

The more people hear and see of Obama, the more they like him. This drives his detractors (Bush supporters and Clinton Restorationists alike) here nuts and they are then reduced to mindless ranting. SVReader's screeds, for example, only reinforce my preference for Obama.

Posted by: Truesdell | April 6, 2008 5:02 PM

One man cannot do all the work, Ed, what will you do?

How can Obama unify a nation where hard headed Ed Rendell invites Farrakhan to speak in Philly, share the stage with him and get his praise after the event.

Philly Jews were pissed, but Ed does what Ed wants to do.

Oh the double standard.

Posted by: Rendell and Farrakhan | April 6, 2008 5:48 PM

Which country does Joe Lieberman belong to ?Does he belong to Israel or the United States? If he likes Israel so well, why doesn't he go live there? We cut back on our welfare support for our own citizens and now we give over thirty billion a year to Israel? If they want to treat the Arabs like the Nazis treated them and stir up trouble all the time, they should pay their own way.I'm tired of paying for Israel and their behavior.

Posted by: major teddy | April 7, 2008 12:08 AM

James Carville may be accurately describing how he was unknown until he worked for Clinton, but Bill Richardson was a Congressman from New Mexico for twelve years before Bill Clinton ever ran for national office and Bill Clinton had no part in getting him elected.Maybe Bill Clinton owes him for adding some respectability to a scandal and corruption ridden presidency where the Democrats lost majorities in both houses of Congress and governorships and state legislatures and all the way down to dog catcher because of Clinton antics.James Carville should talk about a Judas after he went and married the top spy for the other side, the worlds ugliest woman, Mary Matlin, who has every bit as treacherous a personality as that miserable wretch James Carville. I feel sorry for those poor kids , with a double down on having ugly looks and a nasty personality.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 7, 2008 12:19 AM

The Clintons had no problem with Florida and Michigan not being seated when they agreed to not count them at the beginning. True to their name, they only care about people when it is an advantage to them. Is the DNC going to stick to its rules, or will we allow the rules to be broken when running the (Clinton) country?
Her campaign started out on the premise that they would walk away with the nomination. Hillary has this air of inheritance that is frankly disturbing. Now, we have her facing up against a real leader and strong campaigner, which hardly anyone knew about when Florida and Michigan voted. A re-vote should be out of the question, but given the path the race has already headed, does she actually think that she will capture the popular vote? Polls from across the country already proves that she won't. Rendell has already showed he is a true Clinton - He has been a spotlight on every news show over the last 30 days. What's going on with the governance of Pennsylvania?

Posted by: Gregory | April 7, 2008 2:10 PM

I am completely flabbergasted that Rendell, a governor, does not recognize the fact that our ability to solve the problems of universal healthcare, education, economy, etc., would depend on the president's ability to unite the nation around a common purpose.
Just because his candidate, Hillary is a polarizing figure and incapable of uniting the nation around these issues does not make "unification" irrelevant.
Again, I shouldn't be surprised. Rendell's comment is consistent with the Clinton campaign "MO" of marginalizing Obama and relegating his campaign issues to the background.

Posted by: Matt | April 10, 2008 1:32 AM

I am completely flabbergasted that Rendell, a governor, does not recognize the fact that our ability to solve the problems of universal healthcare, education, economy, etc., would depend on the president's ability to unite the nation around a common purpose.
Just because his candidate, Hillary is a polarizing figure and incapable of uniting the nation around these issues does not make "unification" irrelevant.
Again, I shouldn't be surprised. Rendell's comment is consistent with the Clinton campaign "MO" of marginalizing Obama and relegating his campaign issues to the background.

Posted by: Matt | April 10, 2008 1:39 AM

I saw a video recently of Howard Dean, in Chicago, saying that anyone who advertised in Florida would not get their delegates.

Barack Obama did advertise nationally which was shown 8 to 12 times a week for two weeks in Florida before the vote.

Hillary should get her delegates and the popular vote. Obama broke the rules in Florida and he should not get any delegates or popular vote accredited to him.

I have been watching t.v. off and on today, and it seems that AA people think that Obama has a right to this Democratic nomination.

But Obama doesn't. It isn't a black issue, it isn't a white issue, it is the right issue, as Rev. Wright said today.

The right issue, among other very detrimental aspects to Obama's past associations, is the face that he is very immature. The President of the United States of America should not be giving "the finger" to other people, and "flipping them off" when he is angry that he isn't getting his way.

Barack "the finger" Obama, made that flipping off gesture twice this week. Once to Hillary, and once to a reporter and the world. We can't have a whiney, sullen, defensive, retaliatory person in the White House.

Hillary Clinton may be many things, but she isn't immature, weak, wilsy, and retaliatory. Hillary Clinton isn't ruining this nomination for Barack Obama, he is doing a fine job of that himself. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 27, 2008 9:03 PM

When Obama was in Chicago, he sent his "swiftboat crew" to the Election Headquarters and they sat there all day looking for a way to get Obama's opponent off the ballot.

They succeeded. Obama won that election because he was unopposed.

That is what Obama and his Axelrod Swiftboat Crew are trying to do to Hillary now. Force her out of the race. They know there is a 50 to 50 chance that Hillary could win this thing. There are millions of voters left to decide.

I heard some super delegates have said that if Hillary and Obama are within 100 delegates, they will vote their conscience, not according to their district, their state, or whatever. Hillary has every bit as good a chance to win this nomination as Obama does.

Especially since Obama is now being truly vetted. His past mistakes, poor choices, bad relationships, and falsehoods about his past - including things about his birth and his parents.

Obama is deceitful and dishonest. It wouldn't take much for a super delegate to see that and vote accordingly.

By the way, I watched some of t.v. today about Rev. Wright and the NAACP and other AA programs on CSPAN.

The AA rhetoric about how Hillary is trying to take the nomination away from Obama is ludicrous.

Of course, Hillary wants to win this nomination - nothing to do with race - she is just a better qualified person.

My support of her is not about race, it is about the fact she is a better qualified, and definitely more mature candidate. She hasn't resorted to flipping off anyone in her campaign. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 27, 2008 9:14 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company