Obama Team Charges 'Double Standard' on Adviser Statements
Samantha Power (left) joined Richard Danzig (center) and Obama at a foreign policy forum in N.H. in November . (Preston Keres/The Washington Post).
By Alec MacGillis
Barack Obama's campaign, which has been spending more time than it would like discussing the utterances of its academic advisers, this afternoon downplayed the recent suggestion of its newly-departed foreign policy adviser that Obama's pledge to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months was less than hard and fast. And it charged that one of Clinton's Iraq advisers had suggested much the same last week, with little repercussion.
Samantha Power -- Harvard professor, author of books on the Rwandan genocide and slain UN official Sergio Vieira de Mello and resident big thinker in the Obama camp -- said in an interview with the BBC that Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq would inevitably depend somewhat on the circumstances he finds when he takes office. The Clinton campaign this afternoon pounced on the matter of fact remark as proof that Obama's promise to get out troops out of Iraq was disingenuous -- just an hour or two after the Clinton camp successfully demanded Power resign her campaign advisory post for another recent comment, telling the Scotsman newspaper that Clinton was behaving like a "monster."
(Whatever is it with the Obama campaign and the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth? After the recent Canadian consulate flap, the Scotsman and now BBC, one can only imagine there will be another bombshell arriving from New Zealand any day now. The Obama campaign may want to follow the lead of top Clinton aide Mandy Grunwald, who refuses to talk to the foreign press, period.)
The BBC interview proceeded as follows:
BBC: "You said that he'll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment isn't it?
POWER: "You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.
He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn't have daily access now as a result of not being the president. So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me -
BBC:Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?
POWER: It's the best case scenario.
BBC: It's the best case scenario.
POWER: It is -
BBC: And of course in Iraq we've never seen best case scenario.
POWER: We have never seen best case scenario
BBC: So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all.
POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that's the best case, estimate of what it would take.
Clinton seized on these remarks today, comparing them to reports that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had privately assured Canadian officials that Obama's ant-NAFTA rhetoric was partly for political consumption. (The Obama campaign has, in fits and starts, denied those reports, and points to an Associated Press report that the Clinton campaign has given similar assurances to the Canadians.) "Sen. Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in the Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comment especially troubling. While Sen. Obama campaigns on his to end the war his top advisors tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president," Clinton said today. "This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."
In a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe rejected this, saying that Power's comments did not represent a change in Obama's Iraq thinking. "On Iraq he has been very clear. He offered a withdrawal plan well over a year ago, it's essential to his candidacy and a rock solid commitment," Plouffe said. "He obviously feels incredibly strongly on this issue." Pressed by reporters, Plouffe added that Obama would, in one of his first acts as president, meet with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and "make clear...that a withdrawal should begin immediately." "He has been and will continue to be crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president we will be out of Iraq," Plouffe said. "It will be 16 months at the most where you can withdraw combat troops...There should be no confusion about that."
Plouffe also noted that Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the Iraq surge strategy and informal adviser to Clinton on Iraq, had recently told the New York Sun that he doubted Clinton would withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as she has said she would on the campaign trail. "Senator Clinton is very knowledgeable about national security and is probably going to be strong on defense," Keane said. 'I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."
Also on the call, Plouffe said that Power had made the "right decision" in stepping down over the "monster" comment. Power is "a very brilliant person and a valuable part of the campaign, but [the campaign] can't condone those kind of comments," he said. But he charged that there was a "double standard" in Clinton's demanding Power's resignation while responding slowly to several people in her own camp who have strayed across the line, such as BET network founder Bob Johnson and machinists' union president Tom Buffenbarger.
Plouffe also further pressed the Obama campaign's call for Clinton to release her and her husband's tax returns of the past six years as soon as possible, saying there were too many questions about the links between the Clintons' newfound wealth and contributors to her campaign and investors involved in her husband's philanthropic and business ventures. Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today. There is no reason why the six years of prior tax returns cannot be released right now," Plouffe said. "They can go to Kinko's and Xerox them...Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent years...it's essential for the American people to know where they're getting money from."
Posted at 3:18 PM ET on Mar 7, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Clinton Criticizes Obama Aide's Comments on Iraq |
Next: Trouble at Texas Caucus Refuted
Get This Widget >>
Comments
Posted by: Katy7540 | March 13, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse
"There was a "double standard" in Clinton's demanding Power's resignation while responding slowly to several people in her own camp who have strayed across the line, such as BET network founder Bob Johnson and machinists' union president Tom Buffenbarger." And Kerrey, and Ferraro!
"Plouffe also further pressed the Obama campaign's call for Clinton to release her and her husband's tax returns of the past six years as soon as possible, saying there were too many questions about the links between the Clintons' newfound wealth and contributors to her campaign and investors involved in her husband's philanthropic and business ventures. Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today. There is no reason why the six years of prior tax returns cannot be released right now," Plouffe said. "They can go to Kinko's and Xerox them...Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent years...it's essential for the American people to know where they're getting money from."
Posted by: Katy7540 | March 13, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse
Quote: ""Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!""
Your proof for this post, please. I am one who does not believe everything they read.
Your proof, please.
Posted by: wly34 | March 11, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse
Wow. After reading what Powers actually said it seems she was saying almost exactly what Obama was saying except saying that things could of course change if conditions merit. Sounds like she was speaking honestly and truthfully. Which means.. Hillary is either lying or exaggerating. Again. I guess that stuff flys in the Clinton universe.
Posted by: cmsatown | March 10, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse
Breaking News!!! Major Political Scandal!!!
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.
You should be angry America. "This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith...
Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse
Obama folks, with all due respect, you are missing the point. Of course it would be irresponsible for Obama to make decisions, once President, without sizing up the current situation with input from his Joint Chiefs, but as I said, that isn't the point. The point is that Clinton doesn't make absurdly optimistic promises which she knows she cannot follow through on. Obama does, apparently in an attempt to take advantage of gullible voters. Now who does that make the cynical, manipulative "monster?" Ok, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - maybe he isn't being cynical and manipulative; rather, maybe he is just inexperienced and naive. Either way, this latest screw up underscores the public's main reservations about Obama.
Posted by: abcde3 | March 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse
Quote: "He claims to be ahead when many of his wins are in caususes where a small minority of the population actually vote, and yet wants to silence millions of voters in Florida And Michigan."
Ridiculous, where have you been? The candidates agreed to pull out of the Florida and Michigan elections. Clinton didn't. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Only Clinton was on the ballot and uncommited still got 44% of the vote! Most didn't bother in Florida because it wasn't supposed to make any difference. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: wly34 | March 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse
Obama supporters have been passionate in supporting their candidate, to the point of seeming nasty. But have you seen this ad showing Hillary Clinton authorizing the Iraq War? It's pretty powerful stuff:
Posted by: masonbill12 | March 9, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse
I'm sorry, I misread the lines. I meant thank you to chersplace.
---------
Barack Obama says he stands for Change, He offers a new kind of Politican, He offers Hope, He will be a uniter He will Inspire.
If the people who are supporting him on these blogs are the example of what he Inspires then our Country is in real trouble.
Calling Hillary Clinton rediculous names, (which he would not condone), Taking every question about the man and making it an issue of Hillary is attacking him. Bringing up very personal parts of her life as a way to denigrate her. Bringing up things about her husband to discredit her but refusing to give her any credit for her time as First Lady.
It does make it seem that his followers are a cult. I am not saying everyone who supports him, I am saying those who do not even want to know the answer to any of these question about him, but will ridicule Hillary Clinton on things that were asked and answered long ago.
I could never follow someone who I know so little about.
He claims to be ahead when many of his wins are in caususes where a small minority of the population actually vote, and yet wants to silence millions of voters in Florida And Michigan.
I find it hard to believe that any American Citizen finds this logic okay.
What happened to the call to count every vote when the last two elections were so flawed?
Posted by: chersplace | March 9, 2008 02:15 PM
Posted by: Golden810 | March 9, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse
I agree with you, Jonura Smith. Thank you for your post. I'm a 30 year old who has voted in every election in the last 12 years. I'm graduating from pharmacy school this month. As a health provider I believe in Hillary Clinton's ability to make a change in health care, education, economics, and foreign policy. I will vote for Hillary in this election.
Posted by: Golden810 | March 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse
For people who keep saying Obama can unite the country and world, I need to see solid evidence please. Otherwise it's just empty rhetorics... like Obama.
You people keep saying "Obama is so great at this and that" but you fail to supply the solid evidence to back up your statements. By evidence I mean records, etc, not YouTube.
The more I hear people worship Obama, the more I want to stay away from the Obama cult.
Posted by: Golden810 | March 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse
Barack Obama says he stands for Change, He offers a new kind of Politican, He offers Hope, He will be a uniter He will Inspire.
If the people who are supporting him on these blogs are the example of what he Inspires then our Country is in real trouble.
Calling Hillary Clinton rediculous names, (which he would not condone), Taking every question about the man and making it an issue of Hillary is attacking him. Bringing up very personal parts of her life as a way to denigrate her. Bringing up things about her husband to discredit her but refusing to give her any credit for her time as First Lady.
It does make it seem that his followers are a cult. I am not saying everyone who supports him, I am saying those who do not even want to know the answer to any of these question about him, but will ridicule Hillary Clinton on things that were asked and answered long ago.
I could never follow someone who I know so little about.
He claims to be ahead when many of his wins are in caususes where a small minority of the population actually vote, and yet wants to silence millions of voters in Florida And Michigan.
I find it hard to believe that any American Citizen finds this logic okay.
What happened to the call to count every vote when the last two elections were so flawed?
Posted by: chersplace | March 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse
The depth and breadth of Barack Obama's crossover support and primary victories are evidence that the only obstacles between the Democratic Party and Barack Obama winning the presidency in a landslide are the Clintons and party bigwigs.
The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If this were ture, then why don't we have answers for:
FOREIGN CLIENTS: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?
MONEY: Do the Clinton Foundation's, Clinton Library's, Clinton campaign and Clinton's income tax records show a proper accounting for the funds received for charitable, public and political purposes versus the Clinton's private income?
PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich the partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?
As a Republican leaning independent, my support of a Democratic candidate for president will "stop dead in its tracks" if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket.
Posted by: jonura_smith | March 9, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse
Senator Barack Obama is the best candidate to unite, not only the political divisions in America, but the world. He will return and enhance America's credability around the world, much of which has certainly been lost during the Bush Administration's presidnecy.
I watched a news report of Senator Clinton campaigning in Wyoming. Part of her rhetoric was that she would "fix" Saudi Arabia because of the high oil prices. What does she mean by that, she will start another war in Saudi Arabia (a key U.S. alley in the Middle East)? What about fixing the American economy????
This is the type of aggresive, bullying rhetoric that has bought so much hatred, towards America, around the world. The world is fed up with America. Look at the results of America's war in Iraq - 4 million refugees, let alone the millions killed.
Clinton is indeed taking advantage of desperate people, in espousing such stupid rhetoric. She is anything but truthful, or an advocate of change for the better, in America. There would be no change from the George W. Bush administration under her leadership.
Also, if she was unable to properly manage her campaign and her campaign's finances appropriately, how is she going to manage the worlds largest economy?
Posted by: anisaleoni | March 8, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse
IS IT 'MISS ANN' OR MS. CLINTON -
In 2008, pretentious outrage and passive-aggressive campaigning works. Unfortunately, for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is an experienced practitioner and perpetrator. Fair competition is threatening for a self-entitled Senator Clinton.
Many Blacks subconsciously recognize this characteristic as the 'Miss Ann' syndrome. I could retire wealthy with a dollar from every Black woman confiding their frustration about some White women using these tactics in the workplace. The civil rights and feminist movement never fully erased the 'Miss Ann' mindset. Most Black women I know swear the feminist movement was historically the White women's movement, and is alive and well in the new millennium with Ms. Clinton.
So, how does America's first relatively untainted, very capable and broadly likeable presidential candidate in 20 years, who happens to be a Black man, overcome? Well, the word among us 'Brothas' on and off the street is simply this: Don't play a game using your opponent's strategy.
When Mrs. Clinton pretentiously hypes outrage over false issues, Senator Obama should ask her to explain the preference for negative campaigning. When she denies the behavior, he should ask how will her tactics genuinely bring Americans together.
Surely, Senator Clinton will attempt to sidestep, distract or dismiss the validity of the questions. She may even complain in her best 'Miss Ann' plaintive voice about feeling attacked. Mr. Obama should end the topic with an emphasis on why voters prefer constructive competition rather than negative campaigning.
Hypocritical, schizophrenic, and passive-aggressive behaviors frustrate and scare me when picking a president. When they all come from someone that may lead our nation during war and peace, guessing is not an option. After fact-checking their websites, choosing between an erratic versus a stable candidate is easy.
Senator Hillary Clinton makes me nervous about "day one." Senator Barack Obama makes me hopeful about "change."
Dennis Moore, Chairperson,
District of Columbia Independents for Citizen Control Party (DCICC)
http://www.DCIndependents.org
dennis@DCIndependents.org
Posted by: DennisDCICC | March 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse
Hillary's texas tie took limbaugh and hillary together (losing candidate of the left, together with far right), versus the leading democrat Barak Obama.
Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse
yudon2, desperate attacks may have worked for the desperate hillary supporters in the short-run, but her attacks can come home to roost and bite her in the butt.
you think people will fall for repetitive machine-gun attacks from your camp forever?
is her dirty politics goal to depress turnout?
she has already lost by the numbers that she failed to pull in ohio (and already in texas) which she needed to even begin to catch up.
she will probably try to steal the election. dirty politics, dirty campaign, so go ahead and throw your kitchen sink and your candidates respectability out along with it.
Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse
Obama said his is a new politics; his words are not just words; he rejected that Hillary said he gave "false hope".
So, it is ironic to defend the NAFTA-gate, the IRAQ-gate by saying Clinton is doing this too.
In fact Clinton didn't have a NAFTA gate. Check CBC report yestarday.
Posted by: yudong2 | March 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse
ermias.kifle he's not trying to get the black vote. He's trying to get everyone's vote. What's suprising to me is how Hillary has been able to manipulate all of you into believing her husband did not sign the NAFTA agreement, she didn't vote for the war and she's a victim. The first sign of hope we've had in 30 years and you guys are trying to squash it. I truely don't want to be on your side of the aurgument. You get what you ask for.
Posted by: denise2233 | March 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse
What about Clinton claiming John McCain would be a good commander in chief despite his stand on Iraq? How could she say that? Is her commitment to pulling out of Iraq wavering? I would say so.
Posted by: goldie2 | March 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse
When did themedia become afraid to report the news anyway?
Just because Hillary fanatics say it's not fair, their dirty campaign politics have not been working because the media must be biased against her because she is a woman?
Show some backbone, media!
Clinton's kitchen sink strategy inclues attacking the press, but the press shouldn't cower in fear so long after she reached her goal of dirty politics winning ohio for her (with texas still in its caucus stage).
The MEDIA can show its backbone by comments that have recently taken her off guard, imaging daring to ask her how his attack differed from her attack! The gaul that the media dare have her backbone again lest she turn them into doormats again by turning her most fanatic suporters loose on them again. If she's not being treated unfairly better than obama, she will whine, but so goes politics, if she can't handle a presidential race herself that points out her weaknesses in her attacks, the media can't cover that up for her.
Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse
Case in point, look at the comments above that again lie about Obama by calling a christian guy a muslim just because he's black with a name that can be traced to his african-side from this father. Even though he was raised by a Christian single-mom, was raised christian, went to the same church for 20 years, pledges allegiance to the US and to the US flag, and does put his hand on the bible, the kitchen sink strategy at work lets people stoop to praying on fears of someone with a foreign-sounding name?
Back in the day, the attacks against the first catholic president, john f. kennedy, were that he would take orders form the Pope.
Of course Hillary is willing to let the republicans' attacks come early because of the "stoop to anything" (kitchen sink) strategy.
Hillary only accepts the truth in written statements, but in person, she'll keep the rumors going by saying "as far as I know" he's as christian as he and all people that have looked at his past have concluded, he's a chrstian. that's why an earier comment above ws so great: that obama should deny that hillary is a monster, "as far as I know."
Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse
Don't forget the rest of the quote about hillary as a metaphor for monster:
"she'll stoop to anything."
the MONSTER comment is a colorful metaphor for her attacks.
The "she'll stoop to anything" comment is more difficult for her supporters to attack.
The has proven the "she'll stoop to anything" line by stooping to the "kitchen sink" strategy and attacking Obama without control, statesmanship, or respectability.
The matephor may be an exaggeration, but just because Clinton doesn't attack teenagers in a low-budget movie while wielding a knife and teling them to vote for her doesn't mean that the meaning of the metaphor, the reference that she'll stoop to anything, isn't already proven by the kitchen sink strategy.
Posted by: eljefejesus | March 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse
Muammar al-Qathafi
Barack Hussein Obama
Abdel Rahman Shalgam
Bashar al-Assad
Abdullah bin Abdul
Can you spot who among these leaders/heads of state is the American president?
Posted by: dsclinton | March 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse
DES MOINES, Iowa - An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.
Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.
"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.
King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.
"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that."
The Illinois senator, born in Hawaii to a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan man, is a Christian and has said he has little connection to the Islamic religion, though he acknowledges he spent part of his childhood in largely Muslim Indonesia.
In criticizing King, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "These comments have no place in our politics." He called on John McCain, the apparent Republican nominee, to "repudiate them like he has previous offensive comments from his supporters."
Last month, McCain denounced an introduction from Cincinnati talk-show host Bill Cunningham, who referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama."
Posted by: dsclinton | March 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse
With winner take all Clinton will have 1721 pledged delegates including Florida & Michigan and Obama will have 1142. Obama will be gone by now. Not only that if the electoral vote method is used, Hillay will have 263 votes and Obama 190. Only 270 votes are needed to win.
I do not know why media is not bringing it up.
Posted by: dsclinton | March 8, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse
Clinton is obviously a monster. This woman actually wants the delegates from Michigan and Florida when the party warned those states not to have their elections early? Clinton is such a cheater she would destroy the democratic party just to become the first female nominee of a major party. If Clinton receives a majority oft he delegates from Michigan or Florida black people will not support her because shes a cheat and McCain will win.Its that simple.
Posted by: lakeqi | March 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse
Double standards, Why does the press keep saying caucuses favor Obama when the truth is Obama is a better manager than Clinton? Each time Obama has closed huge gaps in almost all the primaries why? better manager, clear vision and purpose. Meanwhile Clinton bankrupts her campaign, has bigots running amok while she looks away, throws tantrums on national TV and lies and distorts Obama's records through her teeth?
If elected America can see the real leaps and bounds in change Obama brings, for Hilary it will be spin, harassment, lies and more of the same kneejerk management.
Talk about a monster!
Posted by: FebM | March 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse
Obama has stated publically, and repeatedly, that he has his plan for the Iraq pull-out. Obama has also said he would most certainly consider the situation on the ground and the advice of the military officials, when making decisions.
Hillary feels she has to twist and blow up everything to discredit Obama. Then after insulting Obama, belittling his credentials, and praising McCain over her co-Democrat, Hillary has the audacity to imply that he could be her VP. Just to get Obama's supporters, obviously. Hillary does not possess the level of integrity or decency I would want in my President.
Posted by: Christine6 | March 8, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse
Was undecided until recently. Now not sure I'll vote for either. Favor O'Bama over Monster but not sure.
Posted by: pasolis | March 8, 2008 5:48 AM | Report abuse
It's really pathetic that enlightened people will be blasting Obama camp over a comment about iraq pullout. Only common sense will tell you that you can make good plans now but things may change in 11 months time that will make it foolhardy for you to carry out your then good plans. By the way didn't Hillary Clinton promise New Yorkers thousands of jobs during her campaign for the senate years back only to renege on her promises. Please if you are so dumb to make constructive arguments, stop posting comments on this site. You make me sick.
Posted by: bontumed | March 8, 2008 5:42 AM | Report abuse
I think Obama is quick to realize and correct a mistake, where Clinton gives excuses. Lets look at the current primary to prove this point. Rezko, Farrakan, Powers have been rejected by Obama's campaign and he said the surge is obviously working. It is up to military command to say whether Obama's timetable is strategically and logistically possible, no one else is qualified. It took Hillary years to allude her Iraq vote may have been a bad decision. A governor that speaks of racism in his state without condemning it is not a good supporter. Why is he not gone without a statement condemning racism? Why are there excuses for the surge working? Taking responsibility for mistakes and correcting them shows good leadership. Excuses are like butt cheeks, everyone has them, the talented don't use them and correct mistakes.
Posted by: jameschirico | March 8, 2008 4:56 AM | Report abuse
I think that both Power, Clinton and Michelle Obama are just the normal c___nts. This is the problem. You cannot have a tw__t in power. Look at the idiot fur bags running the Clinton campaign - all of them combined do not have a single brain in their heads. They pillory genius like Mark Penn when they are on the rag. Of course Hillary is a monster sometimes - when she's remembering or experiencing that time of the month. And that moron Plouffle - or Poofle - what's that moron about?
Posted by: DeborahShapseMD | March 8, 2008 2:36 AM | Report abuse
It seems like Powers pegged the right description for Hillary and her spouse. They will stop at nothing to get back into the whitehouse.
What about all the lies and people lives they destroyed.
1. "I smoked pot, but I did't inhale"
2. The tax records.
3. The 7 people that could incremenate them that were killed or disappeared.
4. I did not have sex with that woman, I just let her blow me and smoked a cigar that I put in private places on her body.
5. The superdelegates they have given money too.
6. Whitewater.
7. If he had been watching bin laden, instead of lying about Monica, we may not have had 911, and therefore no Iraq war.
8. Hillary trying to ruin healthcare,
9. Our preteens and teens think oral sex is not sex.
The list goes on.
Posted by: obgcbh | March 8, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse
Its 3AM in the morning and our kids are sleeping.
Then there comes a MONSTER thru the door, its HILLARY TO EAT OUR CHILDREN...
Posted by: briancraj | March 7, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse
CLINTON IS A MONSTER
CLINTON IS A MONSTER
CLINTON IS A MONSTER
CLINTON IS A MONSTER
CLINTON IS A MONSTER
CLINTON IS A MONSTER
I Bill Clinton know it, and I approve this message.
Posted by: briancraj | March 7, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse
@ wly34:
Term limits for family lines is what we need.
We turn up our noses when Putin manages to usurp the Russian term-limit law by supporting a lackey for his position and taking another position of leadership in the government.
But we don't have a problem with Bill using his Presidential stature to campaign for his wife for a chance to get back into the White house for a 3rd term of his own.
Political dynasties are a reality the world over. The Ghandis of India, the Bhuttos of Pakistan, but it still reeks of oligarchical succession to me.
redhiker:
Ms Power sounds more like an Obama blogger than a Harvard professor.
One and the same my friend, remember that, one and the same.
Posted by: NittyGritty08 | March 7, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse
Mrs. Clintons Bank Roll, here's a little insight on why it's taking so long:
1. Hillary's Comm. Director - Howard Wolfson. Howard Wolfson - Partner with Glover Park. Glover Park - $3,100,000 lobbying Income('07). Lobbyists/Employees of Glove.. - have given about $40,000 to Mrs. Hill, thus far...
THE BIG MONEY:
2. Bill pulled in $3.3 million from his work with "Info USA"
3. Clinton's Foundation Rcvd - a $31.3 million donation from cashman Mr. Giustra,
with an addl $100 MILLION PLEDGE
4. Bill should pull about $20 MILLION after he finishes his business with Yucaipa
5. And He pulls $10 million a year from his partnership with Ron Burkle and the Emir of Dubai
THE LIST GOES ON...
Shoot who needs donations from the small
people when you got a Husband that's
hoooooked UP.
More info. on what that Tax Return might
look like?
Just Google it like I did -
FOX, WASH.POST, etc... everybody's been
covering how they get their money...they just do in "spurts" so it all doesn't "come together"...
"DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER"
Posted by: themist | March 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse
Why is it that Clinton shines only when she picks up mud. She should get into a ring to do some mud wrestling. She is of no substance and full of bull.
Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | March 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse
You Hillary supporters are practiced in the art of projection, recognizing your own negative qualities on your opponent but blind to them in yourself. George Bush accusing Democrats of being devisive or the moral posturing of creeps like Foley and Craig are the best examples.
I crack up every time one of you rants that we all think Obama is the Messiah, we are a cult. Nonsense. I am impressed by the way Obama conducts himself, with dignity and humanity. That is what I will vote for. You Clintonoids are the ones who are displaying "true believer" behavior. You talk like she's the second coming of Elizabeth I.
I believe the position of President of the United States should require a certain level of dignity. George Bush failed the requirement miserably and Hillary is failing it now.
The world is in the shape it's in, largely because it is incredibly difficult for truly decent people to achieve high national office. Obama has demonstrated decency at nearly every turn.
Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse
I am not that young either, and celebrate to find someone who can laugh without remorses. My pleasure!
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse
Obama just gave Hillary a good poke in the ribs and nobody even saw it. Ms. Power just took one for the team. It's all upside for Obama. She publicly called Clinton a monster then fell on her sword. Obama looks good because he can say "I don't coutenance that sort of thing in my campaign" and judging by many of the posts here, the topic of whether or not Hillary is a monster is likely to be debated on the talking head shows for the next several days.
Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse
And trace, I have voted in every election since Eisenhower (I told you I was old), and I have begun to think that no matter who is in or what party is in, it makes not much difference. Sad but true. Oh for a viable third party, or term limits.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse
LOL. I agree! You see, it's easy to build consensus :)
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse
trace, I agree. But if we vote by qualifications, Clinton, Obama, McCain, I'm afraid I will have to go with "none of the above". LOL
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse
Samantha Powers was only saying aloud what the majority of America already feels. Hillary Clinton will do anything, say anything, run over anyone she needs to in the quest of her one and only priority: personally being in power. I say that as a Democrat who has defended her in the past, but I just cannot abide this woman any longer. She is poison for our party, poison for our country, and just an all-around bad idea.
There are many, MANY great woman leaders in America today, and I have no doubt we will have our first woman president soon. I just hope and pray that it is not HRC. She is absolutely NOT what this country needs. I hope my fellow Dems will see that in time. Remember, Rush Limbaugh wants the same thing you do, Clinton supporters. That alone should sober you up and make you think.
Posted by: B2O2 | March 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse
You have a point, but let's just say there is a lot of noise in the numbers so we shouldn't bet on them. Why don't we start discussing qualifications such as who has more sense of humor, don't you agree?
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse
trace, there is no way of knowing who voted for what in Texas. The delegates are based on the way the state senate district went in 2004 and 2006. A latino district could get 4 delegates and a black one next door could get 2 with the same percentage of win. Clinton could get the popular vote and not win in delegates in Texas based on past elections. Crazy? Yes, but the Democratic party set it up.
The voters did NOT set it up this way. The national and state DEMO parties set it up to help Jimmy Carter long ago and have not changed it. Too late now.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse
Thoughts for the commenters:
For Post by: fairbalanced | March 7, 2008 07:53 PM:
Old Geesers are old because they don't say dumb things that make them look stupid.
I'm an up and coming "old geeser" who still hopes Obama's-I call him "Obyone" (as in Star Wars)-superior leadership and engagement skills will ultimately win out...
For Post by: con_crusher | March 7, 2008 08:30 PM
George W. Bush, who's crooked as a barrel of snakes and has the IQ of a Texas rock.
Quit insulting Texas rocks!
Posted by: ez4ryder | March 7, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse
The race implication is yours not mine. Mine is a demographic analyisis as yours. Obama got a high percentage of votes from white male votes that probably came from republicans, not from women or hispanics as you correctly point out. What worries me is that the republicans have taken advantage of the fact that democrats allow them to chose who they want to fight.
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse
It's 3:00 o'clock in the morning and the red phone rings. A crisis is brewing in some part of the world. Who's going to protect your sleeping kids?
"Hello, it's Bill"
"Yea, I just got in, now that was some experience, I'll tell you about it some time."
"No she's sleeping, can I help you?"
"Wait a second, I need some Advil."
"No, I don't want to get her up and have her see me like this, let's let her sleep."
"I'm the night person here."
Posted by: bmc | March 7, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse
The difficulty with the Obama campaign appears to be too many not ready for prime time players flapping their lips to either the foreign media or representatives of foreign governments. Any campaign knows there is only one voice and one message.
Samantha Power didn't get it and she is gone. Good riddance. This is not an academic exercise. Where was her brain, obviously it was not connected to her mouth.
Austan Goolsbee didn't get it either, but he is still involved in the campaign. He needs to go and shut his mouth. He is not the candidate.
Sorry folks, but both of these idiots were on the campaign with the support of the candidate. He and he alone is responsible for this mess.
Posted by: NewEra | March 7, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse
I has only began to read the comments and felt that I had to say something. A representative of the Canadian government said the statement about 'my comments re NAFTA are for the campaign and not what I will do if elected' were from the Clinton camp and not the Obama camp. Smell the coffee! She will do anything underhanded to get elected and that is also the kind of president she will be as well. She was for NAFTA before she was against it and after she was against it as well.
Posted by: sjdenny | March 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse
IT IS 3:00 A.M, THE PHONE RINGS, AND THE WORD IS THAT THE CHINESE DICTATORSHIP IS MAKING A SERIOUS PROBE OF U.S. DEFENSES ...
ARE THESE THE PEOPLE YOU WANT ANSWERING THE CALL TO THE WHITE HOUSE???
Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China
March 7, 2008
By Jim McElhatton - The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.
Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.
A spokesman for the William J. Clinton Foundation declined to identify the buyer who was willing to pay so much for a struggling company's stock, saying only that the transaction was handled by a securities broker. It occurred seven months before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
The spokesman, Ben Yarrow, declined last week to say whether Mr. Clinton knew about the Chinese government's connection to Accoona or the felony fraud conviction of one of the company's founders.
"President Clinton gave a speech; he did not endorse a product," Mr. Yarrow said.
The $700,000 capital gains was listed on the tax returns of Mr. Clinton's foundation that were reviewed by The Washington Times.
The lack of disclosure about the buyer and the general activities of former presidents' foundations troubles some ethics experts. ...
Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 7, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse
Now, if you want to talk vote by race, take a look at the Latino population. They will be the majority in Texas soon. So the white vote has nothing to do with Texas being "Bush Country"
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse
Trace, what racist comment are you trying to make? Blacks make up only a small percent of the voters in Texas, something like 17 percent.
What are you trying to say??
Voters in Texas are not registered by party, we can vote for whoever we want in the general election, no matter how we voted in the primaries or caucuses. So no votes can be taken and given to McCain. No one knows who was Republican before voting in the Democratic primary.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse
Yeah, sure I guess the texan white vote has nothing to do with the fact that is Bush country
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse
""My problem? The one who will face a big problem with these phony numbers is Obama when republican votes for him are deducted and added to Mc Cain, in the remote case that he is nominated""
Except in Texas, there is no way to know if you are Republican or Democrat before you vote. You are not registered by party. And we can vote any way we wish in the national election. Sorry.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse
In Texas Obama got a loud and clear message from non republican whites, women and hispanics, no matter what the delegate count says: he is not selling his wonder cookies!
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse
auntbeth. I fully agree with you. Most of the thousands of voters waiting in the cold at the caucuses asked the same thing. Why are we here?? Because, if we voted in the primary, we should also vote in the caucus. That is the way it is set up by the Democratic party in Texas. So we waited out the confusion and voted. The results, Obama wins the most delegates in Texas. Why the media hasn't reported that, I don't know.
Nobody in the party, even knows how to change things from what I can find out. It haqs not mattered before. The last caucus I attended in Texas had five people. There were probably 500 at the one this year. Unreal.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse
My problem? The one who will face a big problem with these phony numbers is Obama when republican votes for him are deducted and added to Mc Cain, in the remote case that he is nominated
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse
Eliminate all caucuses?? That would eliminate some states.
I wonder why Obama wins in caucuses? Could it be that voters don't want to be seen voting for Clinton. Hmmmmm.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse
wly34, you're right, the caucuses are within the rules. Never denied it.
I said the Texas versions let us see quite clearly how badly they represent the popular will.
Eliminate for 2012. Relic of bygone age when the parties didn't ask for public input into the nomination process.
Posted by: auntbeth | March 7, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse
"Why don¡t you try to convince the small number of Texans that voted for Hillary? After all, for Obamites people don't matter, what matters is the delegate count, right?
Say what?? Make some sense. The primary vote went to Clinton. The caucus vote added the winning delegates to Obama. Here we vote twice, if you wish. Sorry about your problem.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse
rtrecker akes an interesting point.
Perfect example of extreme negative campaigning by Obama proxies.
And you wonder why Clinton is responding?
LMFAO.
Posted by: auntbeth | March 7, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse
Quote: "Also, the caucus in Texas shows that the pledged delegate count is hardly democratically based. Eliminate all caucuses for 2012. They are ridiculous."
The national democratic party set it up in Texas to help Jimmy Carter win. It has never mattered before. Now it came back to bite them. I live in Texas and I voted twice as we have done for years. The Republican vote is not set up this way and no delegates are elected in their caucus (which is attended by practically no one). It is so easy to be a Republican voter in Texas and so hard to be a Democratic voter. BUT, is was set up by the party, so live with it.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse
wly34,
Why don¡t you try to convince the small number of Texans that voted for Hillary? After all, for Obamites people don't matter, what matters is the delegate count, right?
Posted by: trace-sc | March 7, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse
1. Today Barack Obama is running a presidential campaign based on hope and change. Yet with such undisputably good and lofty reasons to run for the presidency of the United States, he has been called a "hope monger". About his uplifting speeches about hope, Clinton accused him of plagiarizing his speeches.
When Obama offered his public service credentials while working in Chicago instead of as a high priced lawyer, Clinton accused him of having ties to a 'slumlord'.
2. When Obama asks for transparancy and public release of tax returns he is called a member of the infamous Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy by the Clinton campaign. You sorry americans allow this. After all, transparancy if for us, the citizens of the United States. We must have information to make a decisioin on the candidates.
3. When asked about releasing her white house itineries to allow the public to determine if she has the experience she claims - she refuses or equivocates. and calles Obama "ill-prepared to be president."
4. When asked to release her tax returns to the public as Obama has requested and has done, she has refused and now equivocate by saying maybe by April 15th.
5. When asked about fairness and if Michigan and Florida's banned votes should count (Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan) she could care less about rules and fairness. Clinton wants to change the rules and count those delegates. It's all about her, if it means the absence of rules - so what. Rules don't apply to her - like the rules that all citizens must abide by. Yes, including you. Why???
6, While Obama states he will abide by the decision of the Democratic Party, when asked to work out a fair resolution to the banned Michigan and Florida primaries Clinton has told U.S. News and World Report that she opposes any sort of do-over for Florida and she would not accept it if Michigan were to hold a caucus. So much for her ability to resolve issues.
7. Clinton will stop of nothing, do anything, will observe no limits to what she will do win the presidential election. See how long you stay out of jail if you rob a bank to feed your family. Any 12 year old knows you can't justify means for ends. And she readily admits it. If this means destroying her opponent, or destroying what he stands for and in the process destroy what may be America's only hope at decency and humanity in this presidential campaign- she will do it.
4. Now I ask you, does Hillary Clinton deserve, no - cry out - to be called "a monster" or better yet "A Hitler."
5. Samantha Power is the founding executive director of the Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. She won a 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction for "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide." With credentials like this has Samantha Paul crossed over the line by describing Clinton "a monster" or doing all American citizens a great service by bearing witness to the truth and at the same time calling to attention to the pathetic state of America, land of the free and home to political monsters. The fact is that if a Clinton can exist in our society it is because of you. All of us citizens. It is something all americans should be ashamed of. You deserve a Clinton.
Posted by: doc1400 | March 7, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse
""sorry Abs but it doesn't work that way, they don't add election and caucus reults together for delegates, nice try though.
Sorry, but it works that way in Texas. We vote twice. If you voted in the primary, you can vote again in the caucus that evening, which we did by the thousands.
Obama won the most delegates in Texas.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse
LOL. Okay, let's start, the AP story citing the Clinton NAFTA connection with Canada also said she had no comment.
BS: Full and flat denial and even posted on their website, so the story was wrong at the outset. The Canadians have also denied the story. And what does that mean? Canada has to do a full investigation because with so many people saying, no it didn't happen, of course there's a theory it just HAS to be true. What a hoot.
As for double standard--- honey, there's a line you can't cross. Powers crossed it. And if you want a comment off the record, make sure you say that first.
Although, I think it's an interesting insight into the reality of the "politics of hope." What are they "changing"? Blaming the Clintons? LOL, that's not "new"?.
Also, the caucus in Texas shows that the pledged delegate count is hardly democratically based. Eliminate all caucuses for 2012. They are ridiculous.
Posted by: auntbeth | March 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse
The bottom line is that, like all of the companies he bankrupted as CEO, George W. Bush has run America into the ground. The pathetic 1/3 of the country that still supports him, is comprised mostly of wingnut billionaires, fundamentalists, and rednecks. It remains to be seen who will get the Dem. nomination, but both Obama and Hillary would certainly be an improvement. Politicians will be politicians, but they certainly would not become entangled in corruption and cater to wingnut partisans. George W. Bush is a good campaigner, but is simply too indolent to run a company or country properly. If you want more of the same, vote for McCain, the "maverick" who now grabs his ankles for wingnut groups he once criticized as marginal.
Posted by: con_crusher | March 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse
I would argue that it was the moral and ethical lapses of the Clinton administration that paved the way for two terms of George W. Bush. In the final analysis, that may be the Clinton administrations most enduring legacy. If Hillary manages to slither her way into the presidency, what type of right-wing ideologue abomination will we be doomed to suffer after she's gone?
Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse
The foreign press, especially the BBC reporter who interviewed Samantha Power, conduct superb interviews compared to what I see in the U.S. He consistently pressed Ms. Power to explain or elucidate Obama's rhetorical words and claims with those stated in her book.
Her inexperience showed as she consistently back-tracked and tried to put forward the best light on Obama's promises, claims and words. But under questioning, Obama's promises and claims started to become more nuanced and not as clear cut as they sound when Obams booms them out in rallies.
All should listen to her interview linked below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/08/hardtalk/power_06mar.ram
Posted by: David2007 | March 7, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse
Quote: ""When will the national media start reporting that Obama actually won Texas with more delegates?""
Ain't it the truth. With today's figures, the caucus vote leaves Obama as the winner in Texas. Report that, media.
Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse
response to: (hgogo | March 7, 2008 04:42 PM)
It's Curious. George W. Bush is the sitting president, yet you didn't mention him in your biased tirade. Obama's no worse than George W. Bush, who's crooked as a barrel of snakes and has the IQ of a Texas rock. Obama isn't squeaky clean - few politicians are. But Obama has done an oustanding job at coming correct on most issues that could become problematic. He donated the Rezko's contributions to charity. He canned two employees who he perceived made personal attacks on Clinton. The main difference between Obama and Bush Jr. is that the former admits when he's erred, and tries to rectify the situation. THAT'S the main reason why 2/3 of the country disapproves of W., while purportedly 90% of Obama's contributors are sending $100 or less. It's a free country, but you have very little credability there when your criticism is obviously partisan. Understand?
Posted by: con_crusher | March 7, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse
BILLARY DYNAMIC DUO:
PRESENT US WITH YOUR 2001-'07 TAX RETURNS AND THE CLINTON
LIBRARY FOUNDATION DONOR LIST AND THE BUBBA-BURKLE $20
MILLION PAYMENT-$5 MILLION LOAN CONNECTION AND WE WILL ALL
BE THE WISER, NOT THE EVER SUSPICIOUS INQUIRERS.
Posted by: rfpiktor | March 7, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse
And this is how stupid our politics is. It really is foolish to believe that a plan developed to deal with conditions as they are today will absolutly be the right plan in 10 months when condiitons may have changed. Come on Hillary supporters, that's how George Bush operates. "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts".
Also, the "conventional wisdom" that talking with our enemies is naive because it legitimizes them is positively assinine and is the type of thinking that rules high school cliques. How on earth do you expect to be able to influence people with whom you disagree if you will not even communicate with them? That approach worked fabulously in Iran and North Korea, didn't it.
I know politics is a dirty business, but please let us try and be a little less sophomoric in how we decide to cast our vote.
Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse
Follow the money-- it is the best way to know where power lies and who is lying. Clintons, give it up! We're waiting.
Posted by: hotpoet66 | March 7, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse
Arguably, the largest voting block in America is stupid people. Republicans have long known this and exploited it to the hilt. Now Hillary has joined in. The long decline of the Roman empire began when Caesar bought the plebs and exploited their ignorance and excitability to wield as a cudgel against the Senate. Will history repeat itself (again) or will reason carry the day?
Posted by: JoeBewildered | March 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse
"fairbalanced, you are not going to win over older Americans to the Obama campaign by calling them "Old Geezers". You do a good man of heart a dis-service.
Posted by: mikelliott | March 7, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse
"Wake up young people who so blindly follow Obama"
----
Wake up Geezers who are scared of anything new and so vote for a corrupt, ball-breaking, traditional politico who is already detested by 65% of the American people and can never win the general election.
Wake up Geezers who don't have to live with the bankrupt political future they are perpetuating. Who pass it on to their children and grandchildren just like they pass on the national debt and the broken economy.
Wake up Geezers to the fact that if this campaign is in a tie, it is the young who should get their way... not the old who will die soon anyway.
Wake up, foolish Geezers. Get out of your rut of Old Politics and Republican-style attacks on Hope and Change. Wake up to Obama!
Posted by: fairbalanced | March 7, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse
BWAAA! Welcome to the majors, Barack! Looks like your "dream team" are showing their true colors -- complete lack of experience. No time for amateur hour in the White House!
Posted by: RedSoxJK | March 7, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: rhelms
"sorry Abs but it doesn't work that way, they don't add election and caucus reults together for delegates, nice try though."
The Texas two-step includes the Primary which determines 2/3rd of the delegates and the Caucus which determines the remaining 1/3rd. When the total number of delegates from Texas are counted, if the current numbers hold, Obama will end up with more Texas delegates than Clinton. Count it as one, or count the Primary and Caucus as separate in which they may end up splitting the State but the name of the game is delegates.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/primaries/
Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 7, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse
With her comments today, Ms.Power gave monsters everywhere a bad name.
Posted by: vmunikoti | March 7, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse
The spokesperson for the American public the AMERICAN MEDIA should be very concerned about Hillary Clinton's lack of response to a Barack Obama simple and fair request - the immediate disclosure of Senator Clinton's income tax records.
Where are the truth seekers of America? I say get with it now and save your country's future from any possible sham drudgery.
The common sense in the collective conscience of our world's democratic peoples would dictate such action as being your duty, and you of all, the MEDIA, know that to be true.
May God bless America in guiding her to a resounding and absolute truth this coming November.
The world is watching and trusting you will do "right" by us all.
Posted by: mikelliott | March 7, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse
I do not understand why Power had to resign; 40% of the country is on record agreeing with her.
Posted by: Ethicist | March 7, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse
Obama is the fraud. He had a free ride starting on January 1 and it is just now, this past week, ending. That means he has to actually have some real answers and be called on just like the other two candidates! And as far as NAFTA, Clinton has the WRITTEN memo. So much for Obama saying it never happened. The more you know about Obama, the more you know not to vote for him. Yes, WHERE IS THE BEEF?
Posted by: Texan2007 | March 7, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse
sorry Abs but it doesn't work that way, they don't add election and caucus reults together for delegates, nice try though.
Posted by: rhelms | March 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: MAUFIT
"Another one of Obama's lies, speeches, and empty promises. Naftagate and now Iraqgate. We know you now Obama. Wake up young people who blindly follow Obama!"
You mean another one of Clinton's distortions (also known as lies).
"Canada Says TV Story on Obama NAFTA Deception is 'Untrue'"
By Terence P. Jeffrey and Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief and Senior Editor
February 28, 2008
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080228b.html
Senator Obama's demographics includes younger voters but it is asinine to imply that only young voters have supported him. In Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia and D.C. he cut deeply into Clinton's supposed demographics so quit spreading distortions and political gossip.
As a matter of fact, right now Sen. Obama is winning the Texas Caucus by 12% with over 41% precincts reporting. If the Caucus results hold, he will have won Texas with more delegates than Clinton! Of course if that happens she'll try to change the rules after the game has been played. It is her way of doing things.
Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse
george, read my 5:17 post.
Gay Wired is saying Hillary demanded Power resignation, you know what if she can do that, then I definitely want her running this country. Word gets out Obama foreign policy personnel says H is a "monster" Obama personnel resigns- all this in a day. The woman gets it done, no ifs, ands or buts. Go Hillary
Posted by: rhelms | March 7, 2008 6:58 PM |
Senator Obama has won 30 states to Hillary's 14! He has 161 more pledged delegates and he has won the total popular votes. He won the Texas caucus and came away with more total delegates including the Texas primary and the Texas caucus, and so now the "monster" is suing. She threatened to sue in Iowa, Nevada, Texas, Michigan and Florida. Hillary cant win fairly so she lies about her opponent to voters, breaks her agreements, tries to change the rules and sues.