The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

What a democracy we have people discussing politics all over the country.Then there are some of you that won't stop at anything if only you could get people to see things your way. Senator Obama is an open book, the things that you think you are disclosing doesn't matter to a lot of people. If they believe in his message. What really throw me through a loop is so many people have forgotten the murky water that surround the Clintons, it will never go away,mark my words. You speak of Obama possibly doing things dishonest,when we know factually the Clintons are the King and Queen of"I Did Not Sleep With... what Whitewater?" Be very careful trying to convince people that Senator Obama is not right for the job.See where it got Bill,the election totaly turned around.

What a democracy we have people discussing politics all over the country.Then there are some of you that won't stop at anything if only you could get people to see things your way. Senator Obama is an open book, the things that you think you are disclosing doesn't matter to a lot of people. If they believe in his message. What really throw me through a loop is so many people have forgotten the murky water that surround the Clintons, it will never go away,mark my words. You speak of Obama possibly doing things dishonest,when we know factually the Clintons are the King and Queen of"I Did Not Sleep With... what Whitewater?Be very careful trying to convince people that Senator Obama is not right for the job.See where it got Bill,the election totaly turned around.

I am a black woman in Florida, and I am voting for Hillary. The only thing that Obama is offering is a blanket speach about "change" and "hope," and that he is "for the people." Blah, blah, blah. That's fluff. How is he going to produce change. Let him tell us that. He has offered very little decisive answers to anything. Do you really think that it's that easy? And, if he was for the people. Why didn't he come to Florida, instead of snubbing us? Why? Because we had nothing to offer him. He showed me that he is not all about the people. He is all about the vote. He also showed that he is manipulative of our race by giving that ML King speach, and had the nerve to try to sound like him. That was an insult to our race. The minute he is in mixed company, do you think that he will speak that way. No. So, don't think that he is any different than or better than any other candidate. That job will overwhelm him. He talks a good blanket game, but he is not ready or polished enough to set this country back on course. McCain would have us still spiraling downward, but Hillary will give it balance. For those who talk about lies and all of that. Who doesn't? I'm sure you do to. Do you think Obama is being truthful about everything?

diksagev says "This is NOT a threat by Senator Obama".

I personally say Obama threaten that his voters just might not want to vote for Hillary. Then he stopped (it was obvious he was angry.)

I do think he will change his tone if he loses. Obama is truly a magnificent speaker.

I dislike the focus that his great charisma and vision is all it's going to take to change the country. Paul Krugman wrote he found this bologne too. Looking at history Franklin Roosevelt had to battle head on with the Right Wing to make reforms. FDR had a vision. He knew he would have to fight for it, and negotiate where needed.

I try and tell myself Obama is just doing this to be "effective". But then, I decide I don't like many of his supporters for wanting to "believe" he can work magic. I find their hope in magic for our major problems dangerous too.

You DO realize Bush is about to leave the country in an economic crisis. Senator Webb has been warning it might be so bad, it could be compared with a stron depression.

Do we really want someone less experienced and relying on it all being easy to fix because he has great charisma like "Kennedy"?

Obama would be smart to back off during the economic recession that IS int he pipeline for the next President, then make another try at it.

I might even vote for him if he changes his campaign style in the future (to where it is not based on attacks. He'd have to find someone other than the Clintons to attack.... and then claim underdog status.)

Chris, you really think Obama is pure on the campaign contributions?

I've lost my main link. But here's just one small example:.
.

Here the NY Times documents how after claiming he sponsered legislation to make the nuclear industry safer, he caved completely to ask for "voluntary" reporting.

Then the SAME company he was supposedly regulating gave him very large donations for senator and running for President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers. "

"I also HATE that Obama keeps threatening that his supporters won't support her if she wins the nomination but hers will support him!"

This is NOT a threat by Senator Obama. He has stated repeatedly that he and Hillary were friends before the campaign and they will be friends after the campaign. He has supported a united Party once the nomination has been won. Don't ne paranoid and spread this kind of filth toward Obama just because the Clintons failed to support the last two Democratic candidates in elections against George W Bush (possibly to keep Hillary from having to run against a Democratic encumbant or wait another 4 years?). If Senator Obama is saying anything at all about his supporters not supporting Hillary, he is merely stating a well-known fact. There are many voters out there who would have never supported Hillary Clinton whether Barack Obama was running against her for the nomination or not. Regardless of who ran against her in the Primaries and regardless of who she might face in a general election, there are a great many voters who will simply NOT support Hillary and Bill's return to the White House, and that has nothing to do with Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton is a negative person with tons of political baggage who is every bit as devisive (maybe moreso) as George W Bush. I know that a lot of Clinton supporters mistake statements that people will NOT vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination to be "threats" from Obama supporters that are based on sour grapes if he loses - but those feelings run much deeper than that and do not involve Obama - and they are definitely not just empty THREATS. Hillary is unacceptable to a great many Americans who will not vote for her at any cost and that will hurt the Democratic Party in a general election (especially among Independent voters) if Hillary is the nominee.

I am sad. Obama is the "divisive" one. Watch him closely. He is ruining the democratic party. WATCH HIM.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871

Posted by: mjno | February 7, 2008 07:59 PM

Thank you for providing that slanted account. It took me all of 20 seconds to find one that is a little more balanced.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22839654/

How many shady dealings did Hillary have with clients and other aquaintances from her days at the Rose Law Firm? How many of them did she take to Washington DC with her and place in the Clinton Administration? How many of them were involved with Hillary in scandals that racked our government and how many of them ended up in Prison (to be later pardoned for their sins by Bill Clinton)?

You Clinton supporters should really be more careful about going to negative when there are 30 names and incidents that are equally damaging and far worse regarding the same type of shady characters. It seems this isn't the first time that a Clinton has been seen smiling in a picture with a criminal that that had claimed to not know or had never met. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Iowatreasures' attack against Obama's church is among the lowest of the low in political attacks. I think that's lower than even the Republicans want to go. That one may even be beneath Carl Rove, though that may be stretching it a bit. I can't wait to see the day when this kind of tactics backfires big time and turns voters against the campaign responsible for such garbage. The backlash from the Clintons' attacks against Obama in South Carolina may be a hopeful sign. But to attack a church? That kind of thing may be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" with voters. I don't think McCain would do it. He's already got enough problems trying to appease the religious right.

Hillary Clinton suddenly wanted 5 debates not because she is the better debater but because:

1. With her campaign's financial problems she needs the free exposure.
2. She wants to take Obama off the campaign trail where he is most effective, face-to-face with the voters.
3. She had a huge head start across the country, and the more time Obama spends campaigning in the states, the better he is able to overcome her advantage in name recognition, organization, and familiarity to the voters. As in the case with Michigan and Florida, no campaigning works to her advantage. She wants to limit the voters' exposure to Obama and maintain her advantage.
4. She also knows that the debates allow the media to control the message rather than the candidates, and that also works to her advantage. (Now, if they could have a real debate, where you take the media out of the picture and let the candidates respond directly to each other and question each other, that would be a format where Obama could excel.)

Obama did not "dodge" debates. He agreed to 2 debates. Five would have been too much time to spend on debates, which are less effective means of getting his message out since few undecided voters will be watching them anyway, and those who have made up their mind are not likely to be swayed by the debates.

Really, I don't think the debates serve much of any good purpose. Other than the volatile South Carolina debate, they are mostly just a rehashing of the same things over and over again, with each candidate responding to whatever questions with his or her talking points. And other than Iraq, the differences between the two of them on issues are too nuanced for most undecided voters to grasp anyway.

Iraq is the sole exception. Clinton was waffled on that issue and tried to please everyone with poll-tested answers. Obama has been very clear and strong about his opposition to the war. Clinton tries to undermine that by saying that Obama has voted to fund the war, but the truth is that he voted to fund the troops, not the war. And among Democratic candidates, only Kucinich did not vote for the funding. (Part of me wants to agree with Kucinich that to cut off funding would end the war. But then another part of me believes Bush would leave the troops there, with or without adequate funding. That's the dilemma all Democrats (and Republicans) against the war were faced with. Of course, if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had been strong enough to say to Bush, "You are not going to get any funding bills without a timetable for withdrawal," and to stick to that, who knows?) But in any case, voting to fund the troops does not mean Obama changed from his position against the war.

Two debates in 4-5 weeks is plenty. Five would be a senseless and ineffective distraction from campaigning in the several states with immanent primaries and caucases. The only debate that may have made any difference in how people voted was perhaps the S. Carolina one, which apparently swayed more people to Obama rather than to Clinton. The other debates made little impact on the process. So having a debate every week would be a huge waste of time. Most people would get tired of them and tune out anyway.

Clinton supporters will dismiss all of this with the silly idea that Obama is afraid to debate her or that she does better in the debates (which the vote counts do not support). But my reply to them is: See #1-#4 above. That explains it all.

this is outlandish Eric whoeveryouare:
"I also HATE that Obama keeps threatening that his supporters won't support her if she wins the nomination but hers will support him! So the guy is saying "Screw you! We'll give the election to the republicans if I don't get my way!" WHAT KIND OF ARROGANT JERK IS THAT???!"
The kind who is telling you the truth. It's amusing to me when you people call him arrogant - he is one of the most humble men who has ever run for President. I mean, doesn't it take a bit of ego to WANT to be President? I WILL vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but as an Obama volunteer, I can tell you that these new voters who have registered ONLY to support him and are coming out in droves, will not vote for Hillary. People who have been disinfranchised by the "establishment" and candidates who represent it, and young inspired college kids are telling me they don't want the same old divided Washington partisan politics and that is what we will have with The Clintons.
Once again, if Rezco is the only thing they've got on him (oh, and those kindergarden papers) - I don't think there is much more to say. He has donated any money from Rezco to charity.
And any time anyone says Rezco, I just think yeah, and what about Norman Hsu? Remeber Hillary had to give the money he donated to her to charity as well? Let me refresh for you, from Wiki:
Norman Hsu is a convicted pyramid investment promoter who associated himself with the apparel industry. His business activities were intertwined with his role as a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party, and he gained notoriety after suspicious patterns of bundled campaign contributions were reported in 2007 to the Clinton Campaign. Subsequently he was discovered to have been a long-time fugitive in connection with a 1992 fraud conviction. After turning himself in to California authorities in 2007 he fled the state again and was quickly recaptured.>>
Yeah, the Clintons have a veritable warehouse of slime - President McCain anyone?

Can someone please explain to me the definition of "Experience" which is being utilized by Hillary Clinton. I am totally unaware of any political experience which makes her more qualified than Obama to be President. From a factual perspective, they are both Ivy League educated attorneys with similar terms of office in the United States Senate. Is it felt that because Hillary is married to former President Clinton, she is more qualified to be the "Chief Executive Officer" of this country? In her role as "wife of the President" she was ineffective in using her influence to garner support for Universal Health Care among the legislators. What makes one think that she can get this approved as the President? While Universal Health Care is desirable, the probability that it will come to fruition is highly unlikely. Non of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobbyist are going to disappear in the middle of the night because there is a new President in the White House. Presidential candidates are doing what they do best which is appeal to the emotions of the masses. Which candidate will reach across the aisles to build consensus and garner support to tackle the issues which can be realistically solved? I don't want to hear the "PIE in the SKY" and lofty but unrealistic plans of either candidate. It is time for a Change in this Country and why not give Obama an opportunity to be that change agent.

How sadly ironic that the first viable female candidate for President has been relying on her husband to drag her across the finish line. And when that did not appear to be working, she resorted to injecting race and gender into the contest. Hillary is Nixon reincarnated - and that's not what our country needs.

The irony of claims that Clinton is substantive is that those claims aren't actually backed by substance.

So, for you substance hounds out there, here's a look at Obama and Clinton's records in the Senate.

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law), the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate), the 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law), the Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (in committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

So who's the candidate of substance?

(By the way, for an amusing example of Clinton trying to be the "doer", watch her try to make a big deal out of a diplomatic trip to Bosnia taken with -- drum roll, please -- ... Sinbad!

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs )

To Alberta, yes it is us poor people who live on Social security that are giving to the Obama campaign. $25 every month, gave no Christmas gifts to my 7 kids, they also gave no gifts so they could give. Get your facts right before you speak. I also gave
him my late husbands blessed treasure to carry with him, it was 70 years old. I see so much good in that man, I am 74. His name means 'blessed' in Swahili and is in the book of Judges. He has no dirt on him to compare to her. Read "Lovely Quotes From Hillary" In AR they were known as the 2 headed snake my AR friends said.

It is great to read the comments, or at least those that stick to the issues and facts, not the attacks. The future of this country, and maybe the globe, depends on a Democrat winning in November, and keeping the House and gaining hopefully gaining the Senate. I think debates are very important right now for our party to continue to delineate between the last two candidates. The candidate who can speak to the issues, clearly and consistently, will help voters that are undecided, and continue to contrast the Democratic ideals from those of McCain.
I am a Hillary supporter. Her website, like Obamas, has always had a donor site. I live in California, and know first hand that both candidates spent alot of money on ads. Those endorsement parties must have been expensive too.
Beware of the Republican machine misleading the public. McCain is an agressive individual who will let the party operatives do any attack they need to. McCain needs to make amends with the conservative wing of their party, and will go to any extreme to get their votes. I don't think independents are going to feel very warm and fuzzy about him by next November.
Please take an honest look at the states Obama and Clinton won, and who voted. Never underestimate the power of the core Democratic voters, and the new voters who made a difference last week, and will again in November. Asian voters, Latino voters, the older voter, and women continue to show up, and vote. In the privacy of the voting booth even more women will cross over and vote for Hillary.
Think unity, think November, think Democrat.

It would be a great ticket Clinton/Obama. I don't understand why everyone is pitting Obama as this GREAT HOPE because we need a change. What kind of change? That is what you wanted with Bill, and you got your change with Bush. How much of a change do you think Obama is from Bush? He can weave a good story like Bush, he can manhandle his so called victories like Bush, as he did when he proclaimed himself the winner of Super Tuesday, which he wasn't. Delegates are what counts. Clinton had more, but you notice that we didn't hear Clinton stating that. Now, just as Bush did we see him about to get dirty by wanting her to show her tax records. We are in a delicate situation now. What this country is in need of is someone with experience and who is reputable with other countries. Regardless of what anyone thinks, we will have that with Hillary AND Bill. But, just like Bush, what experience does Obama have dealing with other countries? I have never seen him talking with other leaders. We need someone who can bridge the rifts with other countries. Obama is not polished enough. I am a black woman. I have thought about this, and I have put this country's need before what my race needs. Obama would make a great president, but now is not his time. The next election, I would vote for him, regardless of what a great job Hillary was doing, and if he wasn't the vice president. I wish that he would consider the vice presidency for the opportunity to gain the experience that Bill will provide to both him and Hillary.

Does anyone think that it is curious that all republicans are saying they want to run against Hillary because they could beat her easily? Why would they say something that would encourage democcrats to keep her from the nomination? The truth is obvious. The Republicans want Obama because they will eat him alive!!!! When summer comes, many of us will be tired of his empty speeches, inspiration will not be news, but dirt will be. We will lose the general election if Obama is the nominee. As for Clinton uniting the republicans against her--do not under estimate the number of republican women that are quietly supporting her.

For henni.ouahes:

You honestly list your number one reason to not vote for Obama as his refusal to wear the ubiquitous lapel pin flag? Really? And then you say no one will explain why?

Well, here you are- I invested 10 seconds in answering this for you- it was very difficult, I had to type "obama flag lapel pin" into google and then click on a link. I hope you put a little more effort into researching other issues on candidates.

Here is his response to that question:

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."

I am in complet support of him- Patriotism is speaking out on issues you believe in, doing what you think is right, not putting on the latest accessory that somehow validates your patriotism. I love my wife, but I don't put a lapel pin with her picture on each day- my day to day actions are what shows my commitment.

I read some of these responses and I am amazed at the spewing of hate. These are both good candidates but some of the responses I see here for one or the other sound like they were written by elementary school children.

If you are gust going to make baseless attacks against either candidate you are just feeding into the hands of the Republicans.

My God folks wake up. We are lucky to have to great folks running this cycle!

From my side of the pond in he old UK a few weeks ago I wanted to do the right thing for the old USA and looked up Clinton's website - a mess it is. I tried to find her policies.
She lumps "the disabled" with "the old". We are PEOPLE not commodities. I looked up Obama and his site is clear and legible and his policies are clean and there is video to go with each. He speaks in good clear English - better than our PM or the awful Blair. He talks about disabilities. He is a fresh face from America and will give the potential for the US of A to be liked again and it can only benefit all of us. WAKE UP!

Let me begin by saying I AM a Hillary advocate and supporter. Now, let me tell you why Obama is NOT my choice! 1. He refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel and no one who supports or works for him will tell me why. 2. I have seen him standing with Hillary and others who are pledging our flag and he is NOT, and again no one will explain why. 3. He is the one who is NOT fighting against making this about race, in fact, he implies it a lot! In an article today in the NY Times, Obama's campaign manager said that the "landscape has changed now that Clinton appears to be making a strong play for Virginia, tapping the outer counties of Northern Virginia and WORKING CLASS WHITE area further west." Tell me that is NOT racist??? Aren't the Obama people tapping those areas that are more BLACK? But if Clinton says that, he or she is racist! Sounds like a double standard to me...
4. Yes, Bill CLinton was impeached for having sex in the White House??? Give me a break! If we impeached every PResident who had extramarital affairs, they'd ALL have been impeached - probably "W", too! How about let's focus on the fact that the one who is in the White House now should be impeached for legitimate reasons, too many to list! 5. How about the fact that Obama wasn't even in the Senate or public office when he "was against the war and Hillary voted for it"! His opinion then mattered as much as mine! Since then, he and Hillary have voted exactly alike on the war. Hummmmmmm....
Maybe those Dems who are so PRO Obama, need to look deeper into his record and his history before throwing stones at the Clinton campaign...

Hillary die hard fans are worrying. Why would Obama play the race card? That would make no sense. Nationally, he loses as just the race candidate. Also, the man has an actual theory of constitutional development. He is witty, smart, comes across as genuine (if holding back a little at times when dealing with the media directly).

Clinton's obviously competent. But is her heart in the right place? Has she come to cultivate power for its own sake? Honestly, some of her answers to questions are beyond politics. She comes across as a practiced, false, disingenuous machiavellian.

So it comes down to this, for me. Is this the time for America to have a symbolic, inspiring presidency? To restore people's faith in the direction the country is taking?

Or is it time for hard politics, for wheeling and dealing?

I'm not saying Obama can't be pragmatic. Evidently he can. It seems to me his main selling point is to restore faith to most americans in the political system. And at times of recession, I think they need that more than they need the old Washington pendulum-swing.

Obama is going to be the nominee. Clinton has been steadily losing her appeal, her funds are depleting and her base is already tapped out. Obama has shown he can raise money liquid fast. That money comes from individual donors. We own his campaign not big business. To date he's won more states and on Tuesday he won just as many delegates as Clinton did. I suspect this trend will continue and she'll run out of steam.

Obama said, "It is clear many of her supporters will go his way if he is the nominee, but it is not clear many of his supporters will go her way." I think that is a very true statement. I don't know that I can support Clinton if she is nominated. I've already seen her colors in the wake of the MI and FL primaries with her pledge to have those votes seated...they should not be seated. Those states knew the penalty before they changed their dates. If she is the strong candidate she should be able to win without them.

Obama appeals to more moderates. Its that kind of candidate who can bring things to center. We need to end the red/blue state stuff. We need to work together to solve our common problems. We need to do so without the distractions of personal baggage brought into the whitehouse from prior administrations. We need to move forward. New blood, grass roots. E Pluribus Unum.

Go Obama...We got Work To Do.

If Hillary wins the nomination, my friends and I will vote for McCain, because it is better to be wrong but honest, than right but deceiptful. She bashed so much about ending the war and then voted for its continued funding. If she cares for America, she steps aside and endorses Obama.

Never have I seen so many comments--great to see that everyone is now paying attention.

We should pay very close attention. Pay attention to the mood of the country. Pay attention to the fact that the Republican Party is circling around John McCain and that he is moderate enough to steal the independents that will be absolutely necessary for any Democrat to win in November.

Obama is not that Democrat. He is not moderate enough to win the independent vote in a general election against a war seasoned veteran Senator. Obama's lack of experience will make him seem like the Pie-in-the-sky liberal and we will lose this election.

There will be a day for Obama but today is not the day. Winning the general election is our only goal at this point--should we lose all else means nothing.

Hillary can and will win. Thank goodness we have her when we need her.

Obama has forgotten how much his black brothers and sisters suffered during the Reagan years. He is the beneficiary of black racism to begin his political career with in IL, yet he praises REAGAN AND THE REPUBLICAN'S IDEAS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. We just don't know whom Hillary is running against, a Republican or a Democrat a honorable man or a hypocrite.

We just can't trust a rookie (If not worst) with the most important job in the free world just because he is a great SPEAKER.

Talk is cheap, We need substance. People who are greedy for money and power usually are good speakers, like Reagan, who managed to fool the entire nation into believing that he had done a lot, while he was the laziest president ever. Reagan and his wife had literately turned the WH into a circus Hollywood style, with them being the clown and actors for 8 years. Many woman, children, and minority people are still suffering financially today because of Reagan.

ugoekeowa - i went to link didn't see an interview. can you try and find it again?

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills."

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress four times.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Young, and old. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

MJNO regarding Taylor Marsh - who ever she is. i can point you toward much more damaging info about Hillary. Point is Barack in the press admitted that dealing with Reznko (sp?) was a mistake. Hillary has yet to admit that voting to take us to WAR was a mistake. See the sign of a true leader is one that has the WISDOM to admit when he/she is wrong, learn from it and move forward. One cannot learn from it if they've not admitted that they're wrong! Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyC7loMop58

America is not listening to Oprah or the Ted and Carolyn Kennedy. Instead they listen to the debates. Obama couldn't win a debate with Hillary. He is full of empty talk, with no substance. Hillary has provided roadmaps for economic recovery and universal healthcare. Our nation is in recession, and we need her leadership and skill to get us out of all these problems.
Obama is a snake oil saleman. He promised "change" in Illinois -- but failed to deliver anything. He did not inititate or support any fundamental changes that would improve the lives of Chicagoan. He benefited politically and financially from the corrupt system. Obama has done nothing as a senator except cutting deals to enrich himself as Rezko partner. Michelle tripled her salary at the hospital job immediately after he was elected to the senate. The Obamas are scam artists with the smooth talk.
Hillary has been scrutinized for century and they come out with nothing. I trust Hillary more than Obama.
Hillary 08!

Posted by: tigerjcs | February 7, 2008 07:48 PM

Complete rubbish. They listened in 13 states on Tuesday. Count 'em! Obama's healthcare proposal may not sound so flashy but is practicable, Hillary's is FANTASY! She won California because of postal votes cast months before by the foolish old people. By the time the election comes those folks might be dead and McCain will blast her away. As for Illinois, who cares? What has HRC done for New York apart from drain it of all soul?

"I am sad. Obama is the "divisive" one. Watch him closely. He is ruining the democratic party. WATCH HIM.

Posted by: mjno | February 7, 2008 07:59 PM

It probably needs ruining - it's as corrupt as Washington and just as afraid of change - hence this superdelegate nonsense. Not only are you sad you are stupid to try clinging on to the 'slumlord' story by the way- no-one cares about it.

Obama is fantastic. For all those people who say that he lacks substance please watch this insightful interview and educate yourselves. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1071704&srvc=rss

Pure magic. He speaks from the heart and inspires.

one question to the washington post, can you place the lastest comment first?
It seems much easier to understand the readers reaction.

Djibril an Obama supporter.

Turns out that the news about Hillary Clinton donating $5 million of her own money while her senior staffers faced a loss of their paychecks may be just a ploy to win sympathy, again.

At first, the news of Hillary's financial difficulties struck me as odd, but not because her outside funds were drying up.

After all, Barack Obama is showing us all that Hillary can't even win a fixed fight, and "smart" money is not, well, dumb.

Still I asked myself, how was it that someone of once modest means who claimed to have worked tirelessly for 35 years ("fighting for YOU!") in the notoriously badly-paid public interest sector had become so wealthy?

Sure there's been some financial scandals.

And as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say, "A million here, a million there --it adds up to real money."

But why focus on the negative? What does the skelton of a scandal or six rattling around in your closet matter, when you have so much experience and a well-tested finger to the wind?

Then, suddenly, a tune entered my head and I thought, maybe if I offered a tailored version of it to the Clinton campaign, they'd use it to replace that awful Celine Dion song that used to be Hillary's campaign anthem.

(Ya know, 99.999 percent of those recently surveyed also say they prefer the Obama Girl to that uni-sex Hillary Eunuch that popped up trying to imitate her.)

Anyway, compensation shouldn't been a problem, if the most recent report that Hillary is back in the pink of financial health is true.

For sure, I wouldn't ask what account at Clintons, Inc. the money came from, or which lobbyist forked it over.

(I'm sure if it was the latter it was in a gesture of sheer generosity--why think evil of people, K Street lobbyists have hearts too, no?

(After all, wasn't it those caring medical insurance lobbyists who hired that nice couple, Harry and Louise?)

If you ask me, it's like Bill with that race card thing. How unfair those critics, who you can be sure all belonged to that Vast Rightwing Conspiracy! (And how slick he was, no? ;D )

Always leave just a little wiggle room, small enough to fit the word "is" through. (Or a cigar.)

Anyway, remember that girls' song, "It's My Party," written by Wally Gold, John Gluck and Herb Weiner and recorded by Lesley Gore?

Well how about this version for HRC?

IT'S MY (DEMOCRATIC) PARTY

Nobody knows where my Bill has gone
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) left the same time
Why was he holding her/their hand(s)
When he's supposed to be mine?

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
(For that's what victims do-o-o-o).

Playin' my constituents, flip-flopping like a Wallenda,
Leave me alone for a while
'Till Bill's dancin' with me
I've got no reason to smile

It's my Democratic Party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you.

(lead break)
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) and Bill just walked through the door
Like a queen(s) with her/their king
Oh what a Dogpatch surprise
Monica (Gennifer/Kathleen/Paula/etc.) is/are wearin' his ring(s)

It's my Democratic Party and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you. ...

Politicians are politicians - Barak or Hillary doesn't matter. They are two of a kind. There is not much difference between them. Barack has high rhetoric and does anything to get elected the same way Hillary did. If playing race card helps him get the African American voters, he will do so, apparently much better than the Clintons. You've to give him the fact that he is a rallying force and is able to mobilize interest in lot of voters. You've to give to her that she was a strong woman who stood up to lot of public scrutiny, nonsensical hate and the constant hits at the Clintons from day one. I'm it wont' be any different if Barack gets into white house. You can't hope to wish away partisanship. This campaign has shown that Barack is no Gandhi(show the other cheek when somebody hits you). He will punch them back which ensues a fresh volley of partisanship. He is dishing out lot of hope that he won't be able to deliver.

I'm sorry Clinton supporters, but I can not and will not support someone who was required to return items taken from the White House and Air Force One. I will not support someone who runs on her experience - but after much research she actually has 5 years less experience in politics than her opponent. I will not support someone who's supporters are so afraid that they will use lies and half truths to gain their desires. I will not support someone who removes information from her resume (WalMart Board Member for 6 years). I will not support someone who will not take the personal responsibility of owning up to a mistake. John Edwards voted for the war too, but was man enough to admit he was wrong.

As for the Muslim issue, yes, Barack Obama's paternal grandfather - who he never met - was Muslim. BUT, in a country that one of our core values is freedom of religion is whether he is or isn't Muslim an issue? Not every Muslim in the world is a member of a terrorist group. Not every Muslim in the world is America's enemy. This is another fear attack that is beneath any American.

Clinton supporters, I respect that you have the right to support your candidate and have merely explained why I will not support her. But, I ask you to please stop the bashing, negative, swift boat tactics towards Barack Obama. IF your candidate is truly the strongest candidate, they are unneeded.

There are much more Democrat voters than Republicans during the Primaries. Regardless which Democrat gets in, the Democrat will win this election.

Hey there. Republican here. Yep, dyed in the wool, voted for Bush, no excuses. Guess what? I just had a great conversation with 5 of my Republican buddies. We all agreed that if Clinton was nominated, we would all vote McCain. However, if you guys nominated Obama, we were split 3-3. Get the picture? Clinton is the most galvanizing thing you could do. At least if you nominate Obama, you stand a chance.

gandalfthegrey --All day I have been trying to articulate why I lean more toward Obama than Clinton, you did it for me. Thank you. The word opportunist has been floating around my mind ever since she ran for the NY senate. (And that's when I lived in NY. Now I live in CA.) I knew even then she had her eye on the White House and until Obama came along, I was all set to vote for Hilary. (Lesser of two evils, that sort of thing.) But this is the first time I am actually voting for the person I feel represents my interests and my values. Aren't leaders supposed to be inspiring? Hilary does not inspire me. She feels me with dread. Obama feels me with hope.

VIRGINIA REPUBLICANS; VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES !

Virginia voters, don't waste your vote in the Republican primary; McCain is going to be the Republican nominee.

Vote in the Democratic primary for the Democrat that you'd prefer if the Democrats win in '08 (which is possible!).

Hedge your bets. Don't waste your vote.

Who do you dislike the most? Clinton or Obama?

I once used to enjoy reading comments posted about the election on the site, but it has only degenerated to what facebook was 9 mth ago, a bunch a people with high school level intellect spewing insults and cynicism. For Obama supporter pls take a page from his motto and "disagree without being disagreeable" and likewise for Clinton supporters.
If you're going to post at least do your homework first!

Iowatreasures - please don't behave like the crazy people who spread the email about Obama being a Muslim and tied to the taliban. I don't know why you are "WORRIED" about Obama. HE WAS RAISED BY WHITE FOLKS for crying out loud! What are you thinking? They are the only family he knows. When you are biracial you don't look at the race thing the way others do, because that would be foresaking 1/2 of who you are!!!! DUH! Stick to facts, stick to the issues. If you don't like his plans, if you think his health plan is hokey - fine. But don't start going off on some conspiracy theory nonsense.

We people of Pakistan pray for Democates win who can check despotic regime whose spy agencies have hidden contacts with terrorists and responsible for ever increasing terrorist activities for blackmailing to accomplish their nefarious aims. We pray for success of such President of USA who can dare to destroy Nukes and bring all those whoever traded neuclear material and knowledge to rogue countries to an Intrnational Tribunal.
Hussain Bux Thebo
Sindh, Pakistan

"America is not going to elect an admitted cocaine abuser.'

Um, didn't our current president have a little cocaine/alcohol problem back in the day?

And the fact that Obama disclosed his drug use rather than hide it, compared to how the Clintons are genious at mis-information, I wouldn't hinge Obama's electibility on a youthful mistake.

The Hillary supporters are really digging to try and throw dirt on Obama. Her accomplishments..what are they? She couldn't get anywhere if her last name was something like "White" or "Smith" or "Jones". She uses the "fond" hazy memories that people had of Bill. How quickly they forget all the illegal activity that went on. Just because he Bill managed to avoid jail doesn't make him any less guilty. Just think, if Bill had been chasing Obama instead of interns, we might have been spared the horror of 9/11. Hillary excuses her loan to campaign with some crap about believing in herself. Note that this "loan" was not made public until AFTER the Feb. 5th primaries. Why? Fewer votes. She will stop at nothing to win. Imagine anyone willing to be her V/P. It's pointless as there would be no political power in that position with Billary as POTUS. She wants more debates with Obama as that gives her free publicity. She is expert at talking and promising. She hired a Voice Coach last year, paid for from campaign funds. The corporate Clintons know how to "work a crowd" and promise the moon. Can Hillary could REALLY get mandated health care passed by both houses. Obama is sincere, highly intelligent, and will be able to work with all parties in the White House.

HILLARY IS CHANGE! She is a woman of substance standing up against an establishment that is ingrained with interest groups and lobbyist. She tried to change this when she stepped in to help fix a broken Health Care system, only to have it knocked down by interest groups; however, this did not discourage her from re-trying to CHANGE IT. She is vetted, smart, experienced, hard-working and her heart is in the right place. This has earned her a re-election as a tireless NY Senator and swayed doubters like myself. I like Barack; he is inspirational and well liked especially when faced against the what we currently have in the White House; however, after the honeymoon is over and reality kicks in we need to rely on someone that has a proven record and not one that is a "MAYBE". The U.S. and the World has too much at stake.

P.S. With her being elected, you also get Bill Clinton. This is a BIG plus to her presidency to help re-establish respect and rebuild relationships around the world.

If Obama get nomination republicans play him like a toy on several issues and he never wins

Well, the press would be all over the Clinton campaign if they had made similar petty remarks about finances.
People looking for a Clinton/Obama ticket can forget it.
Obama looks to be right out of the George W. Bush mold, petty and mean spirited plus they both did cocaine in their youth.
The more light that is shined on Obama, the more illuminated are the weaknesses in his character.
"Change" is nothing more than a campaign slogan. His snub at the State of the Union speech and the denial that followed reflect the pettiness of the individual.
We saw more of it at the debate when he went after Clinton with a knife, she ended up wiping the floor with him while he played the victim.
I have seen enough of this individual and will not waste my precious vote on him!

Obama's superior chances at the November elections is evidenced by the following states - who had exit polls - that showed he won the majority of Independent votes:

Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah.

This compares to Clinton winning smaller majorities of Independent voters in the following states:

Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts, Oklahoma.

Now, go and look at what majority in each state the Independents currently make up. In a lot of cases the Independents are the majority. They have extremely strong swing power. Also look into the high negative ratings Clinton has with Independents. With this information, you can come to no other conclusion that Obama is the better candidate to secure a Democratic Presidency.

I have noticed that the first posted comment is always anti-Obama, in almost all the media web sites. The politically correct is said inside the media report. Immediatly below that the garbage is said on the name of un-known citizens. This is how they get around the law ristriction. I logged the time, then posted immediately, but got the message that your comment will be reviewed then posted. A few moment later it was posted after two anti-obama comments.

People really need to relax (yes, you svreader & harried). Your random, psychotic attacks are hurting your candidate more than helping.

Why can't we admit that both of these folks are intelligent, capable, and worth looking at? I mean, if they are tied in delegates, then obviously half of America isn't insane. Its because they are both great choices. If you do think that half of the democrats in America are insane, perhaps you should switch parties.

Honestly, the personal attacks are not flattering.

I don't understand the "empty suit" and "snake-oil salesman" comments about Obama or why they are merited. He is obviously intelligent, was a law professor and respected U.S. Senator, and graduated from Harvard. All he is selling is hope, and now even Hillary is on that bandwagon and uses the word "change" often.

As for electability, both TIME and the NY Times report similar statistics that Hillary vs. McCain would be close, a tie to almost 3 % in favor of McCain according to national polls. But, in Obama vs. McCain, Obama is up at least 6% and leads with 2/3 of independents. Not to mention the rabid hate of the Republicans of Clinton which will motivate their base. Even Clinton supporters can admit that right wing conservatives loathe their candidate, fair or unfair.

Let's try to talk facts, people, and not attacks. I think the spread of partisan warfare over the last 16 years has now spread down to within the parties. This is sad and pathetic. Keep to the facts and keep respect for both of these talented politicians.

I think at this stage Clinton should raise her voice to win. President Clinton needs to act now. People like Obama's answer in the last debate about iraq war but be realistic.
Obama grand parents lives in Kenya are not Christians and his Father family side have muslim background. His opposition to the war in the beginning is therefore understandable.
In the beginning of 2003, when more than 70 % public was in support for the war and when CIA and the bush administration bringing proof of weapons in iraq what made Obama think to oppose the war? why he did not believe CIA reports at that time, even though the reports are proven false now.
"It is not his good judgment as a Leader"

I do not like that Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - AFTER - she discussed with senior Democratic colleagues the likelihood that he would take the authorization and run.

Now, in increasingly clumsy attempts to re-write history, she claims that all she did was to authorize an invasion if all other diplomatic negotiations failed. In this explanation she is once again standing with her finger in the wind trying to position herself for a general election.

Better that she stands behind her vote - or admits she was wrong - but again, in L.A. she refused once more to choose on which side of the issue she stands....

She spent over 6 minutes in that debate flip-flopping around in embarrassing fashion on HER war authorization vote.

So.....why did she vote FOR the WAR?

She knew the Dems would not carry the issue...a No vote would have cemented her in opposition to the stupid war. It would not have affected the vote outcome.

Why did she vote YES????

Why did she vote to join with the Republicans and give to George Bush the authority to take this country into a pre-emptive war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of American soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors?

She brags about her support of children...what about our sons and daughters in uniform?

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq because she did not want to poison the well from which she thought (way back in 2003) she would have to drink when going up against a Republican in 2008.

She voted "YES" to insulate herself from Republican attack.

In other words,

she took a position with an eye on HER future - and NOT the future of the United States.

Hillary Clinton took her stance on the War with her eye on her political career. There is no other explanation for her vote - unless she supported the war and is now ducking that conviction.

She is a politician and not a leader.

CLINTON MUST BE DENIED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

...And, if people can't see that it is exactly this putting Corporations and lobbyists before the American people that has harmed America over the course of the Bush administration and you willfully ignore the clear writing on the wall that the Clinton's are brought into that same game, well you deserve nothing better than continuing down the path that has been played over the last 8 years.

To me, it seems obvious that the better choice for a president is the one who has raised funds from the American people directly - because they are only bound to the American people - not groups that have their own interests, rather than your interests, at heart.

Obama has played a clean race, very much unlike the Clinton's. They will lie and cheat and do whatever is necessary to come through for the Corporations and lobbyists that have invested in their campaign for the promise of later gains. Be wise people.

If I remember clearly, Bill Clinton smoked but wait a minute, I forgot, he didn't inhale, while Obama gave the world the truth about what he did when he was younger. Obama is too much of a gentleman, if I was him, I would have not debated her, and let her desperately look for money for publicity. Just the idea of Obama running, has the world looking at us, as a different racially united country, if Hilary came in, we would be perceived as a war mongering country losing the mantle of leadership. Vote for change, Vote Obama.
Obama 08

I have chosen not to drink the Clinton Kool-Aid. Billary is a pathetic excuse for a candidate who will only repeat the John Kerry strategy of winning only the big states, but with likely poorer results. She has had no reliable ground game in many states throughout the middle of the country (e.g. Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota, etc.). How is this a winning strategy for the Fall? Also, what the hell is going on with her getting "misty" just before a major primary (e.g. New Hampshire, super tuesday)? It's beginning to look manipulative. There is no way my white male friends in middle America fly-over country will ever vote for her in the general. All of us have already voted for Obama in our caucus.

"Obama, he's getting $30 million, then $5 million, from all these "POOR" people.

Shoot! How come all these "POOR" people have that much left over?"

Obama gets the highly educated upper middle class "wine drinking" vote.
They make $100,000 a year.
They give him $50.00 to $250 every couple weeks.
The have lap tops and sit in coffee cafe's.

Hillary gets the whites with GED's and who make less than 20 thousand a year.

She gets most her money from lobbyist and packs. They have maxed out. That is why she is having problems.

Obama has millions ans millions of people who keep sending him $50 bucks or more every couple weeks. They are not maxed out.

Obama is for the people and funded by the people.

He is the real deal. He is supported by the middle class people of America.

I think we must look at this Old Man McCane!
Bombed Women and Children from the air and got caught!

Screw Him!!!!!

Hillary gets so--- emotional and cries every time she wants someone to feel sorry for her and give her votes.
What a phony? She and Bill both need to get a grip and come out of the closet. She will be deceptive at any cost and the American people are tired of fake individuals such as herself. We demand a change for the better and the clear choice is Obama.

Obama is very intelligent, call it preacher or whatever have you. Is that the only/best comparison you can come up with when describing someone of his ethnicity that has an overwhelming amount of intelligence and speaks on a level that only Hillary could dream of. You have to be kidding me. He IS MUCH MORE presidential than Hillary, and has what it takes to move America forward. Hillary always seems like she is so pissed off and on her menstrual period every time a debate occurs, I would hate to see this type of person attempt to make peace around the world and keep us in good standing with American allies. Hillary and Bill are only doing well in accomplishing great divisions amongst the Democratic party. Job well done, now move on with your life.

Obama for president 2008

Sometimes I think 2/3 of the comments on here are from republicans pretending to be Hillary or Obama supporters- the vitriol and ugliness are very different from the conversations I have with my friends and colleagues whom I know, rather than just annonymous accounts on the post website.

I frankly think both Hillary and Obama are strong candidates. I think Obama is a better candidate, because he is drawing new enthusiastic voters into the democratic party, and he can articulate a strong vision of unity and service that people are responding too.

For those that say he is full of lovely rhetoric but few details- first I would say he has very detailed plans on most issues- and then I would remind you that congress legislates, the president has the power of the bully pulpit to help steer the debate and the country. I believe that is not a small gift. For all of Hillary's expertise and "wonkishness," it did nothing to help her move healthcare reform forward, because she did it in a way that alienated far too many people. I fully supported it, but the way it fell apart really set us back.

Lastly- for those that say a person with a history of cocaine use can't be elected- um, W? I think people are actually impressed that Obama can answer a question honestly, rather than use a Bush dodge like "I did not use cocaine in the last x number of years, and before that I won't talk about it."

Anyways, that's long enough, but lets try keep it civil, both among ourselves and in our comments about 2 candidates who are both quite impressive people. I always hate the negativity that explodes on annonymous forums.

-Dimitri Drekonja

PMSL about people calling Obama the company ho. Last year in Iowa Clinton was challenged about taking traditional campaign funding from Corporations and lobbyists - i.e. the status quo way. Her position was that she could take this money but still stand up against the interests of those funding her and poo-poohed the idea that you could run a campaign any other way. Edwards AND Obama disagreed and formed their campaigns around grassroots donations from the people, so that the people's voice was heard over lobbyists and Corporations.

Obama has proved Clinton wrong - you can get enough funds together with grassroots campaigning - you don't have to pre-sell yourself to lobbyists and Corporations to get elected. Obama stays true to his message, while Clinton flips and flops and tells you whatever will work to get you to vote for her - but in the end her pre-brought campaign will ensure a presidency where the American people are secondary to what the Corporations and lobbyists want.

has anyone noticed that the british press is reporting the u.s search for a democratic candidate to suit a pro-clinton format?

I think we must look at this Old Man McCane!
Bombed Women and Children from the air and got caught!

Screw Him!!!!!

Posted by: harried | February 7, 2008 10:24 PM

tigerjcs: So Obama promised change but failed to deliver; would you care to elaborate on the changes that the esteemed Senator has made in my state of New York? This woman campaigned for the Senate in November of 2006 and completely denied any intention of running for President. A little over a month later, she revealed her plan and a comprehensive organizational strategy. Meanwhile, throughout the summer and fall she was begged to actually debate the issues (Iraq War, American Israeli policy, healthcare, capital punishment, etc.) by a highly respected but relatively unknown progressive Democratic challenger named Jonathan Tasini; editorials were written in the New York Times, New York Post, Newsday, ALbany Times Union, DEMANDING that she debate him, but she refused. She would gain nothing by actually revealing her lack of commitment to ANYTHING AT ALL!!!!!!
Some questions that won't be addressed in the debate:
1.She voted to authorize the use of force w/out BOTHERING to READ the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was kept in a vault, and to which none of her aids had access. I personally travelled to New Hampshire just to finally get a chance to ask her in person if she had read the report (she had previously declined to answer a reporter's question on the issue, and completely ignored all of my emails and letters).
2. She claims that G.W.B. "misled" her and the American people. The fact is that she wasn't just "misled", she was ACTIVELY ENGAGED in MISLEADING. In her highly influential 10/10/02 speech, she stated "Saddam Hussein has given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members..." She termed this "fact" "Indisputable". Sorry, Hil, and Tigerjcs, but any debate edge that you have is that words and accuracy don't really matter to you. The only indisputable fact is that not only was their no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that virtually ALL Middle Eastern Foreign Policy Analysts and Scholars, as well as virtually all Democratic establishment figures categorically rejected the idea at the time. (Al Gore skewers her behavior (w/out directly using her name) in his book "The Assault on Reason" He ridicules the idea that any Democrat could invoke the "had I known what I know now defense, since they absolutely should have known then).
3.She voted AGAINST a Senate Amendment which would have banned the use of CLUSTER BOMBS in civilian areas. No explanation given. (Most of us Jews recognize it as pure pandering to the rightwing Israeli lobby, as Israel had just showered Lebanon with these things, despite the protests of many of its own soldiers). If you don't understand how horrific this vote was, then you have no business ever voting in any election.
4. She cosponsered legislation that would Criminalize the Desecration of the U.S. flag. So it's ok with Hillary if I make and profit from the sale of CLUSTER BOMBS, but if you use the flag in a peaceful protest against such activities, then you should be incarcerated. (By the way, any smart 4th grader can tell you that the 1st Amendment was created to protect unpopular speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court averred when it ruled such legislation unconstitutional).
5.She now is fond of claiming that the American military has succeeded, but that it is the Iraqi government that has failed to take responsibility for its own country. This statement, when considered in the context of our having virtually destroyed their society because of our own stupid, arrogant rush to an unprecedented illegal preemptive war, approved by a jackass congress that hadn't even STUDIED the intelligence, is not only cruel, it is not only infuriating, and likely to incite terror, IT IS SIMPLY BORDERLINE SOCIOPATHIC. It simply reveals a total lack of conscience. Not only does this person have no business running for President, she (as well as many others) should be REMOVED from the Senate for CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!!!!!!!!!!
6. Ralph Nader has explicitly stated that he will run if she is the nominee. No progressive of conscience will vote for this person, with her arrogant militaristic pandering, her endless earmarks for weapons systems,her excessive corporate ties, her AIPAC nonsense, her approval of more and more media consolidation, which shuts out all progressive candidates who aren't multimillionaires, her absolute silence as Wal-mart waged its WAR on unions, her lack of understanding of the detrimental impact of NAFTA on the working class and poor both at home and abroad. HER LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON ANY SINGLE ISSUE!!!! Please, I beg of you name a principled position of this person! SHE WILL NOT WIN. The Republicans won't defeat her. The Democrats will. She represents everything that smart Democrats Hate. There are good reasons that the more educated part of the electorate are choosing Barack Obama. The best is Hillary Clinton.

part 2

Example #5 Obama praises Ronald Reagan's charisma instead of Clinton's management of the economy

Obama praised Ronald Reagan's "charisma" in an interview, plus said Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Bill Clinton took this as a personal insult.

Why? Bill Clinton did a superb job managing the finances of this country when President ** decreasing the massive deficits the country he inherited from Reagan/Bush Sr., and decreasing them every year - under both Democratic and Republican congresses -- until the US had surpluses in Clinton's last two years in office.

Remember, when Bush first came in office he kept repeating how the US had "surpluses as far as the eye can see?" The projections were based on Clinton's steward of the economy . Even Alan Greenspan (a Republican) praised how Clinton did a great job on the US economy on a Sixty Minutes show a few months ago.

Paul Krugman wrote an article in the NY Times why he had a problem with Obama's praise for Reagan. Per Krugman, "Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. "The Reagan-Bush years," he declared, "have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect. ... Contrast that with Mr. Obama's recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." .. where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?scp=4&sq=krugman&st=nyt

Obama was praising Reagan's charisma because he saw himself (Obama) as also possessing/sharing in great charisma.

But was it really Reagan's charisma that expanded the Republican Party. Paul Krugman has analyzed this time period before and concluded the reason the Republican Party grew, was almost due entirely to White Southerners being angry with Lynden Johnson's social legislation that help blacks fight segretation.

This wasn't charisma - this was policy.

#6 Bill Clinton is now called a racist for observing there are more black voters in South Carolina, and this was probably a factor why Hillary lost the primary there.

When Obama won the primary in South Carolina, Bill Clinton commented to the press it was due to a large proportion of the Democratic base in South Caroline being black. Clinton added that Jessie Jackson had also won a primary once in South Caroline (but had not done well after that.)

There was another uproar led by the Obama camp that this again was proof the Clintons were racists. Television news reveled in the controversy that Bill Clinton was showing anger. (He was angry -- but at being falsely accused and savagely attacked.)

Some of the frenzy died down after more calm heads noted that even black commentators had stated how Obama should do well in S. Carolina because of the high percentage of blacks voting in the Democratic primary. Other analysts had noted Hillary received higher support among women voters.

If Bill Clinton's remarks were racist, wasn't everyone else's remarks too? And if one wanted to start this game, did that mean anyone who observed that more women voted for Hillary - were misogynists (women haters?)

Against this background, Obama was campaigning how only he could get people to work together and pushing his charisma and vision.

Many editorials picked up how mean and unfair those bad Clintons were to poor Obama.
.
#7 Obama is still claiming that it is Hillary who is harshly attacking him.

Just prior to Super Tuesday, Brian Williams of NBC interviewed Obama and asked him how he would handle it if he is nominated - and the Right Wing starts attacking him.

Obama replied coolly that he wasn't worried, because the Right Wing can't attack him any harder than the Clintons have.

Really? Here are some hints of attacks that Right Wing have already observed and will pounce on:
:

- Obama had a Muslim father and his name (Barack Hussein) is Muslim,
- Obama's preacher is a fan of a controversial Muslim named Farrakhan, (Obama is not though.)
- Obama has admitted to cocaine addiction as a teenager in a book.
- Obama's has a close friendship with Rezko - a businessman now in jail and from whom Obama bought the land he build his mansion at a questionable low market price,
- Obama does not believe he should hold his hand over his heart while the national anthem is played - even when everyone else is. There is a video of this on Snopes.com. (Note: Obama does hold his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance - but I predict Right Wing future attack ads will leave this part out)
- Obama is relatively less experience than all the other politicians running...

Hillary will have her share of attacks. It will be non-stop Monica and Whitewater. But these are old issues for most people.

The Right Wing will find new areas to attack on Hillary - but I think they would have even more non stop attacks on Obama - the list above will put them in a frenzy.

The Right Wing Attack Machine is very powerful. Below are a few examples:

* Has anyone every questioned why it is only "bad" when Democratic candidates have affairs?
* Al Gore never said he "invented" the internet. He said he created the internet, in the context he got crucial financial funding for it. Al Gore was not a crazed environmentalist. He was trying to warn this country of real dangers.
* The Swift Boaters told us John Kerry was a traitor to his country and hated the Bible. (There as even an effort to ex-communicated Kerry from the Catholic Church for his support of gays and abortion.)

So - should we "believe" Obama when he says the Right Wing won't be any harder on him that the mean Hillary Clinton campaign?

Not me!

Which is a BIG reason, I am not supporting Obama in the primary.
\
There is another big reason I am not supporting Obama. Hillary really has the right attitude that it will take more than "charisma" to do the work to move our country in the right direction again. And she's got the qualifications and drive for it!

Go Hillary!

I don't think Senator Obama should debate Billary. There have been enough debates already. Are the Clintons that desperate now? More debates, no money and don't belive what Taylor Marsh writes, she's a shrill for Billary.

"... we've created this base where people send $25 checks, $50 checks on an ongoing basis, and that is an enormous advantage for our campaign." So says Obama.

Yeah. Just plain folks sending in their pennies.

Except for:

Obama"s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007.

Obama"s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama"s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama"s presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c).

What a charlatan.

Why I switched -- from being a Barack Obama supporter to a Hillary Clinton supporter:

Last fall, I was originally leaning for Obama. Although I will still vote for Obama if he wins the nomination - I am going to vote for Hillary in the primary.

This is how the Obama camp lost me:

Instead of discussing the issues, Obama bases a lot of his campaign attacking the Clintons. Of course, he claims it is they who are attacking them.

But let's look at the record.

Example #1 Obama's character attack on Hillary as a "Witch"

Background. To be fair, the media was calling for Obama to attack Hillary.

After an early debate, Obama declared he would always negotiate with the enemy. Hillary responded this was the wrong approach, and that sometimes one couldn't negotiate with the enemy. Obama said a few days later that he would attack a country if they were terrorist too.

But Obama was looking for an attack back on Hillary. It is unfortunate in my mind that he chose to do this - not through a challenge or debate on the issues - but as a character attack..

Obama appeared on the Saturday Night Live show on a Halloween skit: Instead of dressing up in a Halloween costume, Obama dressed up "as himself" An actress playing "Hillary" wore a witch costume. The actor playing "Bill" called "Hillary" a real witch. Obama (playing himself) stood by watching calmly and presidentially at the fighting.

Comedy and parody is one thing. But Obama's presence meant he was part of it. This crossed the line.

Turn it around to see why: Imagine if Hillary had appeared on a comedy show with an actor portraying Obama as a secret practicing Muslim smoking cocaine. (a caricature the Right Wing has already put out on Obama, so it is not something I have made up.)

Would this seem like dirty politics. Of course.

Would anyone think it hypocritical if Hillary went around afterwards insisting she got people together and was a visionary? Absolutely.

If Obama had only played dirty politics once, I probably would have dropped it. (The media ignored how Obama effectively called Hillary a witch.)

Example #2 Hillary is Declared a Racist for her Martin Luther King remarks.

Hillary delivered a speech describing how political leaders were needed to partner with social leaders. She used Martin Luther King and President Johnson as an example, where President Johnson actually pushed the laws to desegregate the South, although they were largely based on King's moral principles.

The Obama campaign immediately called up the press to report that Hillary had grossly insulted Martin Luther King and was a racist. An Obama state campaign worker wrote up a multiple pages of "proofs" that Hillary was really a racist. Obama not call them off at first. His first public statement on the matter was to pronounce Hillary Clinton's comments on King as "unfortunate."

Obama only changed his mind after he and Hillary Clinton reached a "deal" on the matter.

Why, I thought, did it take a deal? Why didn't Obama do the right thing initially. Anyone could tell this was not a racist comment.

Example #3 Obama keeps distorting Bill Clinton's position on the Iraq War,

Obama insists that Bill Clinton was for the invasion of Iraq.

But here is Bill Clinton on 2/7/2003 on CNN: He wanted to wait for the UN inspectors to find WMD before invading Iraq. He said if it was a mistake you couldn't bring dead people ack.

*"Maybe in the end, the rest of the world just has no will to carry out the U.N.'s decision that's 12 years old now that he has to be disarmed," Clinton said. "But we don't know yet know that, and I always tell people, when you got the only real super military in the world, you can kill people next week or the week after that, or the week after that, but you can't bring them back. So I don't see that it hurts our country any to give Mr. (Hans) Blix a little more time if that's what he wants."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/judy.desk.clinton/index.html
Clinton wanted to first TRY sanctions, more selected military attacks, etc - -FIRST before a war to occupy a soverign country.; plus he was more worried about Bin Laden and North Korea than Saddam
"there are more pressing issues for the United States, such as Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda terrorist network and North Korea restarting its nuclear program.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/07/clinton.iraq/index.html

Obama kept repeating that the Clinton were for the war, even after they complained this was a gross distortion of their position.

Indeed, Obama needed to bash the Clintons on the war. It was necessary to hold himself up as a great visionary and leader who was the only person who would have kept us out of Iraq.

Example #4 Obama insisted that only he had the vision to be opposed to the Iraq War ... and

Obama repeated the theme that Hillary was a war monger for her vote on the War Resolution that gave Bush the powers to invade Iraq.

Except that Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004 (after the Iraq War had started) and therefore never voted on the War Resolution.

The Clinton camp noted that both Obama and Hillary had essentially identical voting records on Iraq, once Obama became Senator in 2004.

Obama claimed the Clintons were unfairly "attacking" him for making this statement.

Obama did publicly state his opposition to the War In Iraq - while out a private citizen. But many of the Democrats who voted for the War Resolution on Iraq were also opposed to the War. They voted for the War Resolution anyway so that the country would be prepared "if" Iraq really had WMD. The public was calling their Congressmen to put aside their partisan differences and show the world that America was united to take up force, if necessary to protect its citizens.

Hillary's position was that it was correct to vote to unite behind a leader in our time of need.
She has said "if" she had known that Bush was a liar (PLUS the Republicans would solidly support Bush afterwards) she would not have voted for it.

But no one had that kind of crystal ball back then. And if Iraq really was dangerous, it would have been a catastrophic mistake to sit idly if terrorists were working with Saddam on WMD.
.
Most Democrats - those who voted for and against it, said it was a very difficult decision.

Obama leaves out this background - and makes it sound like if he had been in the Senate then, this would have been an easy vote for him.

But no one knows that for sure. Did Obama also know - for sure there was no chance of WMD in Iraq?
I don't think he had any more of a crystal ball than anyone else.

But this has perhaps been Obama's best strategy of tearing down Hillary Clinton to present her as a war monger, while he (Obama) makes "great" decisions.

I see it as great staging and fiction.

I think we mus