Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Obama Leads in Poll; Clinton Hits the Airwaves

Tim Craig

Sen. Barack Obama has a 15-point lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Virginia, according to a new poll published by the Southern Political Report.

The poll, conducted by the polling firm Insider Advantage, shows Obama with 52 percent of the vote, compared to 37 percent for Clinton. The poll was based on interviews 501 voters likely to participate in Tuesday's primary.

The poll results come as Clinton campaign announced today they are launching their first television ads on broadcast stations in Virginia. You can find the ads here and here.

Obama has been airing television ads in Virginia since last week. He plans to campaign in Alexandria and Virginia Beach on Sunday.

Clinton plans to campaign in Manassas and Roanoke on Sunday.

By Tim Craig  |  February 8, 2008; 10:14 AM ET
Categories:  Election 2008/President , Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bolling Reacts to Romney's Departure
Next: Onward and Upward for Marin

Comments

What's better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House for 8 years?

Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama in the White House for 16 years!

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for both amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven | February 8, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

No Democrat could possibly be elected in the White House after another Clinton administration, and very few Democrats could be elected/re-elected during and after another Clinton administration. The Clintons on the ticket will not be a dream, just a long nightmare.

Posted by: Daniela | February 8, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

As a life long Democrat and liberal I have never been more excited or proud of my party and the outstanding choices we ofter for the world,s future! I believe Hillary is the past and Obama Hussein is the future and the leader of the Democrat Party! I think he can bring many more under the Democrat tent and make it the party of the future in the USA . His experience & knowledge of Islam and Muslins ( both his dad & step dad were Muslins and he attended an Islam school as a boy) can bring the Arab Islam Muslins into the Party as well as the Black Muslin Islam Nation and expand the Democrat party. Already we can see Islam Nations around the world are excited & embracing his candidacy. The only that can derail Obama is if Blacks discover he belongs to a different tribe than they do and that could cause serious problems.

Our parties strong stand against the Constitution and Rule of Law for Illegal Immigration should bring the Illegal Immigrants into our camp. Indeed, all immigrants from around the world that want to immigrate to the USA but do not want to go thought. the hassle of legal Immigration will support us. Finally American can live up to its creed under the Democrats and Citizens of the world irregardless of Religion, Race, Tribe, Nationally, Education, Diseases or Skills can come to American and be citizens of this great Nation and the Democrat party while slopping at the trough of public welfare! Our growing and expanding population with our teeming masses from sea to polluted sea will allow to us compete with China, India, and other third world countries and end outsourcing of our jobs.

It may require a balancing act having both the Blacks and Latinos under the same tent with Latino hater of Blacks while Blacks are very upset over Latinos Hi-Jacking their civil rights by equating walking across a border to the nearest welfare office, as the same as blacks experienced with slavery. The Ethic cleansing of Blacks in LA by Illegal Hispanics will also make his task harder, but if anyone can ofter them welfare haven then Obama is the Man.

I think as a seasoned, & experienced drug user Obama and as he says in his book , knowing how to score some blow, he will address how backward, unfair and punitive our drug laws are and legalize drugs. This would release millions of Drug users and drug dealers from prison. They, with their knowledge and experience could go into selling, distribution and expanding the legal drug trade and help our economy and the Black & Hispanic communities. In addition to saving tax payers Tens of Billions now spend in incarceration, prevention and drug fighting cost. Of course, all drugs would have a high tax but still be much cheaper than Illegal drugs. We could earmark the tax receipts from drugs to the millions of Uneducated Immigrants we gave American citizenship to help offset the net cost of 20k per year each cost in public welfare. This would reduced the price of drugs to where the average American citizen could afford good coke, just like the elites and Politicians, This will also reduce the price of creak for our poorer citizens, and make their life more enjoyable. But I fear legalizing drugs will be beyond even Obama. The drugs lords have so many Billions due to high prices , to share with our Politicians to keep our borders open for drugs, illegal immigrants, and terrorist to pour across, that the special interests will never let him legalize drugs. I know Obama, you will do your best and that is all we can ask!

Posted by: bl | February 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Lets NOT talk about watering down the Obama message by installing a hate-monger like Clinton in the white house with him. And lets not think 16 year plans either. After GWB, I LIKE having the option of changing my mind after four.

Posted by: The crossover vote... | February 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Dems better show up at the polls in November regardless of who is the candidate. The last thing we want and need is another 4 years of a Republican in the White House.

Posted by: 761-091 | February 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed by BL's facetious comments. Please don't let facts or reality stand in the way of your rant. Is BL shorthand for born loser?

Posted by: Paul | February 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: bl

Hey bl
are you on meds, if not, please call your doctor. You are making your neighbors feel unsafe.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Believing in Hillary requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Clinton. Clark. Albright. Carville. "We'll be in Bosnia for a year"...still there. "Have some nukes, North Korea... we trust you"... Hmmmm. It depends on what the definition of leadership is, one would guess. Or the best one "Isn't it a shame that our constitution limits a president to just two terms". How did that one work out? Oh yeah, the Lewinsky thing came up. I'd bring up the sworn testimony on Whitewater, but I just can't recall what it was about. Oh yeah, that 911 thing... just didn't see it coming. Too busy running from Somalia.

Posted by: Silent Soldier | February 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Bl: It is the pitiful attempts (like yours)to distort facts that makes true Democrats (and Americans)fight so hard for our causes. Lie as you will! Hide behind mistruths! Hyperbolize! They seem to be the only things you can do. Your sad attempts to smear Obama only adds fuel to the fire of true patriots.

Posted by: Sven | February 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Nice snarky screed bl. Why don't you just go turn Rush back on and spare the rest of us your creepy push poll-esque commentary.

Posted by: Chris in NC | February 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

lets get real here people this election is blacks againstwhites. you can love her or hate her but she is talking facts not giveing sermons on the mount. blacks are for him because he is there color. the people in europe have us peged right dumb ass americansposted by mary.

Posted by: mary961@comcast .net | February 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The groundswell of enthusiastic support for Barack Obama continues to ignite across the country and is unprecedented in modern political history. He is building a broad, diverse coalition and has energized millions of young people to become engaged in the political process for the first time. He has also inspired so many who had been disenfranchised in the past to rise up and embrace a movement of hope and unity.

Yet the path to a glorious victory in November will be extremely arduous and require tremendous fortitude. We face an opponent and a former President that will descend to any depth in their ruthless pursuit of power. The Clintons thrive and excel in the cut throat tactics of political warfare and as they sense that their reign is slipping away, they will resort to literally whatever it takes to prevail.

The vast majority of the Clintons base consists of white women and the elderly. This is a highly disciplined block of voters that will always turn out in high numbers. Our challenge is to ensure that the massive show of support for Barack is translated directly into votes during the remainder of the primary. We must not dilute the tidal wave that is sweeping the country by attending the rallies and then failing to get registered and cast a vote on Election Day.

The country is at a critical crossroad and the choice of leadership could not be cast in starker contrast. Barack Obama is the inspirational, visionary leader that comes along once in a lifetime. He will be the uplifting force of change to repair the wreckage of the Bush/Cheney regime and be the face of a revitalized, united America that will restore moral authority across the world. Whereas the Clintons will turn the clock back in perpetuating the bitter partisanship that has had a corrosive, debilitating effect on our country for the twenty long years that they and the Bushes have occupied the White House.

Our moment in history is before us and it may never present itself again. We must seize the opportunity and have the courage to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.


Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Posted by: ccoblas | February 8, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Another opec poll that doesn't mean much!

No good American will ever vote for barracks saddam hussein osama obama!

No to Kenyan elections in US!

Free Africa of gaddafis and osama obamas!

PRAY FOR AFRICA FULL OF BLACKS AND NOT FULL OF ARABS LIKE OSAMA OBAMA!

Posted by: Chris | February 8, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The groundswell of enthusiastic support for Barack Obama continues to ignite across the country and is unprecedented in modern political history. He is building a broad, diverse coalition and has energized millions of young people to become engaged in the political process for the first time. He has also inspired so many who had been disenfranchised in the past to rise up and embrace a movement of hope and unity.

Yet the path to a glorious victory in November will be extremely arduous and require tremendous fortitude. We face an opponent and a former President that will descend to any depth in their ruthless pursuit of power. The Clintons thrive and excel in the cut throat tactics of political warfare and as they sense that their reign is slipping away, they will resort to literally whatever it takes to prevail.

The vast majority of the Clintons base consists of white women and the elderly. This is a highly disciplined block of voters that will always turn out in high numbers. Our challenge is to ensure that the massive show of support for Barack is translated directly into votes during the remainder of the primary. We must not dilute the tidal wave that is sweeping the country by attending the rallies and then failing to get registered and cast a vote on Election Day.

The country is at a critical crossroad and the choice of leadership could not be cast in starker contrast. Barack Obama is the inspirational, visionary leader that comes along once in a lifetime. He will be the uplifting force of change to repair the wreckage of the Bush/Cheney regime and be the face of a revitalized, united America that will restore moral authority across the world. Whereas the Clintons will turn the clock back in perpetuating the bitter partisanship that has had a corrosive, debilitating effect on our country for the twenty long years that they and the Bushes have occupied the White House.

Our moment in history is before us and it may never present itself again. We must seize the opportunity and have the courage to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.


Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Posted by: ccoblas | February 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillar's motorcade made me lose 15 mins yesterday. F her. I'm voting for BO.

Posted by: Rosebud | February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to see the genius of Obama's campaign.

By never campaigning on the issues, moderates like those in Virginia don't realize that you are actually the most liberal candidate left in the race.

The only candidate to favor driver's licenses for illegals.

The only candidate with an arbitrary time table for withdrawal from Iraq.

The only candidate who wants to increase payroll taxes.

This issues will come out when contrasted against McCain. Pretty shocking that anyone thinks this guy can get elected.

Posted by: me | February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

bl and all like minded crazies,

Barack Obama believes in Jesus Christ and for Christ sake please stop this madness and get some help for your sickness. Pick up a bible and a constitution. Be thankful that you live in the greatest country on earth.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

ccoblas - That is the creepiest cult-like rhetoric I have ever seen.

You realize that Obama is not God, right?

Posted by: dc | February 8, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Don't you just love It! Just as soon as an olive branch is extended out by a reader (steven) for a chance to reconcil between Clinton and Obama, his feet are undercut beneath him.....

One wonders that either the Rove Gremlins are busy at work on the boards hacking away at the Democrats or Obama has some very clueless and immature individuals supporting him ....

BTW, just to set the record straight, Bill Clinton when he stepped down from the Presidency had a 70 plus approval rating from the citizenry-No other modern president can touch that, NOT excluding Reagan...!

Birddog

Posted by: Birddog | February 8, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Last weekend at Yale, Hillary appeared in sheepskin jacket and bell-bottom jeans. One of her enthusiastic elderly classmates shouted: "You look so 1972, dear!" I know she meant it as a compliment.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama's just a flash-in-the-pan -- nothing more...

If y'all wanna vote a loose cannon in, go right ahead, but I'm not gonna let you bring middle-class families like mine down with you!
Those who are enamored by nouveau arrive Obama: Squander your own money on his "CHANGE".

Posted by: N/A | February 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Rosebud- do you think Obama's motorcade hasn't held up people? I sure hope
Americans make the intelligent decision
and don't vote against a candidate because of an inconvenience. The future of this country is far too important for such childish reasoning.

Posted by: jazzy | February 8, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Lets not get sidetracked with the BL sideshow. Someone made a point at the top regarding a Clinton/Obama ticket. I see supporters of both as absolutely passionate about their candidate, and devastated if their candidate doesn't get the nod. This could lead to pro-life hawk President McCain (don't buy into the hype that he's moderate). The idea of Obama as VP has great appeal to me, it gives him the last piece he needs to really be a transformational candidate - real experience. Versus McCain today, the experience thing would be his real weakness, and if the Obama passion wears off before November, mainstream America may not come around to the "Movement". Hillary wouldn't be as inspirational, but as a liberal, female, intelligent and hardworking individual, I'll bet she really would be a great Pres. With both together, the base would be energized and likely unstoppable. Either way, supporters of both candidates MUST support the eventual nominee!

Posted by: John | February 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the bets thing that happened to the republicans. As soon as the primaries are over, whites will realize they have no choice butt to vote for Mccain.

Posted by: JT | February 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Hey bl, you gave yourself away at the beginning of your post. Only a republican bigot intentionally distorts the name of the Democratic party and makes up a threatening sounding name for Barack Obama. I had you figured out even before I got to the racist slurs further down in your disgusting post.
Old white women for Obama!

Posted by: sparky | February 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Forget that (15 points) poll, some football team had that Sunday, get out and support real change, my poll is better I believe for VA. - Obama 54 - H. Clinton 45.

Cherish Life,

Posted by: Larry K | February 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Survey USA also has a poll out today showing it Obama over Clinton, 59-37.

If Virginia really is the major, essential state to watch right now (as the front page of the Post claimed yesterday), then Hillary Clinton is in big trouble.

To BL: Why do you hate America?

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Thanks to bl (see below) for compiling such a complete list of the lamest, most preposterous lies about Barack Obama in one posting. It clearly took a good deal of time to write such a thorough-going slander, and all so cleverly disguised in the language of praise. I can think of only one thing that would motivate such a venomous effort: craven fear.

Posted by: di | February 8, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I appreciate the lunacy of clintonites such as BL and her ilk. It is sick and hideous, but the republican smear machine will give us more of the same in the general so we may as well begin beating it back now. It is also the nastiness that is pushing more reasonable minded people into the Obama camp where.
Thanks much!
Very Truly Yours,
E. Hampshire

Posted by: good gracious | February 8, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the only one who can win against McCain. HRC could never win, rather she will unit the republicans and lose all the independents. Don't forget there will be democrats who will vote for McCain.
Go Obama all the way to the White House!!

Posted by: I | February 8, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

A Clinton on the ticket would draw down support for Obama as the nominee. The independents hate the Clintons and McCain would win. Let's get practical. It is a tie so far. We need a winner. The Republicans voted for their best shot at winning. Clinton will lose the independent voter. Obama wins them over McCain. So let's get behind Obama and continue his inspirational and fundraising success. He will rally the nation. Clinton will lose the youth vote (they will stay home) and the independent vote. And women, beware. If Clinton is the nominee and she loses to McCain, which she will, we won't have another chance for 100 years. She is not the right one for us.

Posted by: Goldie | February 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

to bl - Hate talk like yours never really works.

Posted by: J. Westland | February 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

For all those people who knows the candidates as black obama and lady clinton white, too old McCain, voting is the only tool we have to make a difference in our lives and for the world around us so, please think outside the bun and vote on the real issues which are most important for being #1 nation in the world, who can cut down our 3Trillion debt and who can make the dollar as powerful as it was. Voters have been falling for superficial stuff in the past and we are paying dearly later on, last 3 presidents have started 3 different wars!

Posted by: Unbiased Vote! | February 8, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

OH, Ok, We nominate you and you'll show us your tax return. Is that the deal?
Oh, Ok, We elect you and you will do for us in the Oval Office from day 1. Is that the deal?
Like the TV ad: Wake Up People!! We need transparancy and Citizen involvement to break the status quo in Washington!!

Posted by: Don Slowik | February 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporter PLEASE look at this site. This is just start of Republican attack line:

www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

I hope these are not facts. Republicans only make up lies.

Posted by: Seed of Change | February 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Even Gen-X youngsters are figuring Obama out now...

Joel Stein got Omabaphilia (LA Times)

"It's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a relatively mainstream presidential candidate.

You are embarrassing yourselves. With your "Yes We Can" music video, your "Fired Up, Ready to Go" song, your endless chatter about how he's the first one to inspire you, to make you really feel something -- it's as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read, "Do you like me? Check yes or no." Some of you even cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted for me, I would so never call you again.

Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me. Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote for him. She'd never even called me once about anything else. Not even to see "The Island."

What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,3418234.column

Posted by: Hinn | February 8, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

When yours runs out, don't look to us to erase the damage...

If NOVA didn't dictate the politics of the Commonwealth, I'd say Virginia was truly the poster child for a constitutional democracy, but that's simply not the case anymore...
ROVA blindly follows NOVA's reckless agenda, which don't affect D.C. suburbia but rather put undue burden on ROVA's working families.

Posted by: N/A | February 8, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Steven,

What a terrible idea. Both of these candidates lack national security and defense credentials and either would need to correct that on the bottom of the ticket (like Reagan did with Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did with Cheney, etc.) Putting them on a ticket together would mean that McCain could have a field day attacking them for being weak on defense.

This sounds like a dumb idea cooked up by Hillary Clinton supporters to suppress the enthusiasm for Obama among his base through the notion that they'll be getting Obama either way. I have to confess that I tried the same kind of crap to get Edwards supporters to back Kerry in 2004, so I know this kind of thing when I see it. Nice try. Won't work.

The very idea that you can somehow plan out what is going to happen with the White House for 16 years is absolutely laughable. Even trying to manage to grab 4 years is the hardest thing that can be done in politics and very smart and savvy people usually come up short.

The whole Obama schtick is that we want a whole new direction. Having him as VP would not accomplish that. Note that Bush did not really vary his trade and foreign policy course very much from Bill Clinton's in the long run. He mostly did the same stuff as Clinton, he just wasn't as good at it. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for 4 more years of the same old crap that we despise. You aren't fooling us.

By the way, I don't know what makes you think that there's any point in sending some petition to Howard Dean. See, there's this thing called a Democratic process that we're going through. The chairman of the DNC does not choose either the nominee or the running mate. Everything about your proposal is utterly disingenuous.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

For American who don't want another Rep. in WH, but want the Clintons in the WH again, think twice => Bush-Clinton-Bush and Clintons!. Regardless how high of Bill's rating when he expired his term, it is the past and Clinton's legacy. I don't want to move backward to the past and live in legacy. I want the president who can move USA forward and catch up with China (so we can have less and less made in china) and remove the sign "America for sale" and bring up the economy & mid-class. Most importantly is resolve the economic & more jobs for American and its next generations. Think about your children who graduate for college have no jobs because most of them exported to India & China, etc. Think about why we have less and less Made in USA .. because of Bill Clinton. Why we have more and more illegal immigrants, because of Bush-Clinton-Bush. Why we are what we are right now, because of that dynasty. Are you sure you want to live in the past? are you sure you want to put Bill Clinton back to WH. I support female president but not Hillary, I support the self-made female president, not Hillary. I vote for candidate who last name not Clinton and for the future. We need to take back the world respect and reputation.

Posted by: Katy | February 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I guess it's easy to support Obama and point to his rhetoric. The man has virtually no record. What he does have is troubling in the broader election. He had the most liberal voting record in the Senate last year. He would look like a neophyte trying to debate foreign policy and military matters with McCain. At some point, people are going to look beyond the sparkle for the substance. And don't think the GOP smear machine won't phase him more than Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: The Emperor Has No Clothes | February 8, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

bl its Muslims not Muslins

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

It's not that I dislike Obama, I think he's a great man and will SOMEDAY make a great president. At this point in time, he's just too young and inexperienced.

Sadly, I feel so strongly about this that if he is the Democratic Nominee, I'll have to just hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Posted by: Wisdom comes with age | February 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Right now, America needs a president, not a symbol.

Posted by: luke | February 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Believing in Georg Bush requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Bush Rummy,Condy and Big Daddy Chaney. "We'll be in IRAQ for a year"...still there. "Have some nukes, North Korea... we trust you"... Hmmmm. It depends on what the definition of leadership is, one would guess. Or the best one "Isn't it a shame that our constitution limits a president to just two terms.

After the way this country has been ravaged and mismanaged for 8 years by the incompentent Bush and Team. I look forward to 8 years with either Hillary Or Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is the experience junkie. She should be happy adding to her experience resume with 8 years as Vice-President.

Posted by: Voicesinthewind | February 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Neither "hope" nor "firsts" will carry the day for Democrats this November. Our only chance at beating the Republicans and John McCain is a deadlocked convention and Al Gore saying he is available.

Bill Ander-Randolph, Ma.

Posted by: williamander2003@yahoo.com | February 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Seed of Change is a spammer first class who has appeared on many newspaper blogs.

Posted by: P Anderson | February 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Hillary was wrong about Iraq. She was Wrong about Iran. She was wrong about Lebanon. She was wrong about pakistan.

So. If your measuring her Foreign policy decision making ability over the entire course of her senate career? I suppose she gets an F. There are NO greater decisions that a president will face than those that lead towards or away from war, and she has ABSOLUTELY BLOWN IT on multiple (in fact every) occasion.

Then consider her health care reform debacle as first Lady where her hubris and hamhandedness caused both sides of the aisle to flee in terror. She singlehandedly caused the issue of healthcare reform radio active and ruined it for the US for nearly 2 decades.

GO BARACK!!!! GET LOST HILLARY.

Posted by: justtellthetruth | February 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Please don't pollute Obama with the Hillary Clinton disaster. I am a democrat who logs to vote for Obama. I will never cast a vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumsatnces. She is the most divisive figure in politics. After the stuff she has pulled in her history, she shouldn't be considered. Pick some decent democrat like Senator Biden, the New Mexico governor or some midwestern governor as VP. Keep Hillary away from us. I am sick of Bush/Clinton, Bush/Clinton, Bush/Clinton

Posted by: Obama, the future not the past | February 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

We can only hope that if Clinton gets the Dem's nomination, Obama will run as an independent - not as VP candidate! Three would be quite a crowd in the White House: Hillary, Obama and Bill! Talk about too many cooks in the kitchen. Isn't it clear that Obama would take home the prize in a 3-way race with Clinton and McCain? Clinton would get the old-lady vote (or, more PC, "women over 45"), the conservatives would stay home, and McCain cannot win the anti-war center.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

screw that muslim bararck osama! she was right in iraq and she willl be the best president ever! you go girl! hillary 08

Posted by: jenny b | February 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Hillary represents "Wall-Mart" and McCain an unconstitutional war in Iraq. Vote Obama!

Posted by: Sean77 | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The Truth about Hillary Clinton
-------------------------------------
- has refused to disclose tax returns until after the nomination yet touts campaign transparency
- has refused to disclose documents outlining her activity as first lady even though she counts her 8 years in the white house as part of her "35 years of experience"
- has raised more money from special interest groups than any candidate (including republicans) yet says she will somehow revamp the role special interest groups play in washington
- voted for the iraq war and then said she would pull out of the war and blames bush.
- she voted for a 2001 bankruptcy bill that hurt working class people and yet said in a debate she hoped "it wouldn't pass". A classic example of special interest paybacks
- she claims members of the National Guard and military Reserve didn't have health insurance until she and a GOP colleague took action. In fact, active-duty Guard and Reserve troops already were covered by federal insurance, and four out of five non-active-duty guardsmen and reservists already were covered by their civilian employers or other sources
- her brother, Hugh Rodham, pocketed $400,000 (which was returned) from people who later received pardons from your husband. At the time, you claimed that you had not discussed those pardons with your brother or your husband beforehand. Is that true?
- during the Clinton Administration, Craig Livingstone, the Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, improperly looked through the FBI files of hundreds of your political enemies. There are allegations that you got Livingstone hired, that he went through those files on your orders, and that you also read some of those files. Are any of those allegations true?

My question for Hillary supporters...how long can you blame conservative conspiracies for Clinton unethical behavior?

McCain and Obama are much better candidates....seek the truth.

Posted by: rvv | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

52 to 37 % leaves 11% unaccounted for and 501 people is a pretty small sample; I wonder what the margin of error is on a sample that size)?

Posted by: Dudes for Hillary | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain's camp is praying that Hilary wins because he doesn't have a fighting chance against Obama, who truly is the RFK of our times. Obama is not a flash in the pan--look at the way he's mobilized the younger generation. His style of politics is the future--Hilary is the past.

Posted by: Courtney | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I suggest we try to refrain from pitching Hillary against Barack in such personal ways. We need a united Democratic Party. It's crucial. I prefer Hillary, but they are both able and promising candidates. Enough hatred and bad vibes. Let's rise to our better nature as Americans and Democrats.

Posted by: Chuck | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Shouldn't politics be about the issues and problems in The United States? When parents and schools start addressing racism and hatred with their children from the beginning, then we will start to see some real change.

Posted by: White Male/23 | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Courtney,

Obama is the crappy old stadium of our times??? I don't get it

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama agreed to only 2 more debates. If he can't stand up to a woman and debate, how does he expect to win the Presidency and if he does, how does he expect to stand up to world leaders and our enemies?

To Obama supporters, remember Jim Jones, the cult leader? Good, now go do your research on the candidates and watch them debate the issues that are important to Americans, then make a decision who to support.

Our future and place in the world is too important. Vote carefully.

From a 50 year old working woman who is proudly supporting Hillary.

Posted by: tsr | February 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

this consistent empty rhetoric by you clintonites about obama being nothing but empty rhetoric is getting old.

Posted by: to the naked emperor | February 8, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

In 1988, Dukakis led George Bush Sr. 17% in polls in July. Don't be so sure Obama is the answer. Frankly, I don't think he will match up well with McCain, but I know no more or less than anyone else.

Posted by: Don't Count Your Chickens | February 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Unbiased, you underestimate. 3.1 billion is the proposed budget. Current national debt is over $9.2 billion; $3.4 billion of that since Bush's first budget on 10/1/2001. There was a surplus the previous year, you might recall.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov

Posted by: Broke | February 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

rvv -- about your statement that Hillary claims members of the National Guard and military Reserve didn't have health insurance until she and a GOP colleague took action. In fact, active-duty Guard and Reserve troops already were covered by federal insurance, and four out of five non-active-duty guardsmen and reservists already were covered by their civilian employers or other sources.


I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. 20% of our national guard members didn't have insurance when they returned from Iraq?

That doesn't sound fair to me.

I say go Hillary on that point.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

BL is not a "clintonite"; he's obviously a Republic party follower. However, A Clinton/Obama ticket would not win - it would lose by a landslide. The hype for Obama now will subside by November, and is limited to the Democratic Party anyway. And the venomous hate for Clinton on all levels of the political spectrum will never subside. I like some things about Sen McCain: his courage, his integrity, his service to his country, his willingness to work with those on the other side of the aisle. But I do not like his very old age (older than Reagan was when he was elected in 1980) or the fact that his physical infirmities from crashing in a US Navy jet 40 years ago and being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton for 5+ years make him unfit for the demands of the Presidency - yet, McCain is likely the next President in spite of those issues because this country is still not ready to elect a black man or any woman to the White House.

Posted by: tired boomer | February 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The racial hate message by bl's post of this morning should not be allowed on the washington post site. I thought they had a policy about that.
What this challenged person has spewed is hateful,illegal and a reminder that there are those in America that so narrowly view "their" world that they see all but their radical shreik as enemies to them. bl is a dangerous person. How depressing

Posted by: Frank | February 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just analyze who seems to be more charasmatic and totally honest. F-k Politics. Politics is the oldest art form, and it should not be made into a mockery, the candidate that is more charismatic and honest should win the nations vote. period.

Posted by: JON | February 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter who agrees w/ chuck.
E. Hampshire

Posted by: et | February 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton vs Obama is certainly good recipe for disaster.
Clinton is certainly polarizing for Republicans, moderates can see her as a hard working, smart, committed woman ready to lead the country in the time of significant economic crisis. People can complain about Bill Clinton's moral legacy, but have all enjoyed the economic boom under his tenure.
Obama is a terrific candidate, can bring in the independents and some republicans to vote for the democrats. His speeches are electric, but the conservative movement will go after his background, or lack of it.

In reality each candidate may loose to Mc Cain in Nov. It is not hard to see that happen. I hope Obama realizes he doesnt really have the experience, and Hilary that she has too many haters and come together to save the potential disaster.

Otherwise.. I may go for Mc Cain, as much as I hate to see a republican in the office for another four years.. It might be the best option..

Posted by: DM | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Get a life BL. Quit with the smear and politics of fear through your backhanded post trying to scare people into thinking Obama's a muslim and crackhead.

Shame on you.

Posted by: JW | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama is very rude, corrupt, shameless person. He is a divider rather than uniter .

He has been playing race card(Now he got he wanted, almost all African-Americans vote for him in every state), and playing games of JFK, MLK, Regan, now Ted Kennedy..

What next? Bush? YES.

Indeed He is just like another inexperienced, divisive BUSH, we American should block the his way to White House!



Posted by: franklee | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

As McCain going to be the republican candidate, Barack Obama will be the right candidate for Democrates. There is no way Hillary going to win over McCain. No white male will vote for Hillary over McCain. With the momentum Barack Obama created, he can sweep many republican votes to win the election in November.

Posted by: ss | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I happen to live in the middle of Europe and most of my friends, who live all over the continent, would like to see a young President Obama. They liked President Clinton but do not want to see him in the White House anymore. Bill will continue to be called "Mr. President" and Hillary will be called "Mrs. President". Like Argentina really - a bit third world.
It is a new age. Obama needs Jim Webb or Sam Nunn. By the way, most people here see Obama as "half white" by the way!!

Posted by: Katherine Kemp | February 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Clinton ticket?...Bill Clinton lurking around the white house AGAIN!!!! Maybe he can have the prince of Dubai sleep in the Lincon bedroom for another 20 million $....or...entertain the Russians for another mining deal in Kazakstan just to add to the 131 million he got last time....oh yeah ...maybe he can't do that anymore, because his wife voted against something or other in the senate about that. ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS????

Posted by: Martha Davidson | February 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I have no idea why the Washington Post allows comments. It's not as if anyone is lending anything substantive. It's all blind cheerleading and the tearing down of one's opposition, which is what's wrong with America today.

Posted by: Ryan | February 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I am getting a little fed up with the "ooh, you Obama supporters are like a cult" crud.

It is more than a little sad that people would think actual enthusiasm is a problem. Has it been that long since people have seen the potential for a leader in a politician?

Posted by: MonitaJB | February 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

bl: proofread!

Posted by: UM | February 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm an independent and like many others would choose McCain over Hillary and Obama over McCain. Don't want to see Hillary anywhere near the White house and as a New Yorker, now that I know her better, I question whether I would re-elect her for senate.
Hillary is divisive and wants to portray the election as an epic struggle between Democrat and Republican. How will she govern the 'enemy' half of the country of she wins? And anybody who is seriously suggesting that a 5 year interest rate freeze will be good for our economy is definitely not someone I want anywhere near the reigns of power.

Posted by: Benny | February 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

WE NEED A REAL WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO CLEAN UP AFTER THESE MEN, NOT OSOMA OBAMA. HE IS NOTHING BUT EMPTY IDEAS AND LIES. YO GO GIRL!!

Posted by: MEGAN | February 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT and to lead one of the greatest countries on earth YES WE CAN!!!

Posted by: Sam | February 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing how women are proud that Hillary is running for president. Whats funny is that she stands for everything the "feminism" movement is not. Her so called experience was given not earned. She has been riding on the coat-tail of her husbands career and that is not the defintion of meritocracy. As far as the "womens movement" she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart for over six years. That company is the poster-child for commiting autrocities on women and working families in the United States. So please women, do a little more research before you back a candidate just because she is a "woman"!

Posted by: Sean77 | February 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

If you folks thought Bush was bad, wait'll you get a taste of McCain! If Kerry couldn't win and he wasn't hateful, how do the Democrats expect Hillary with a 50% disapproval rating, to do any better? Not that it matters in a one-party system like this one.

Posted by: Jack Finnigan | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Does someone with a name like barracks saddam hussein osama obama really belive in Jesus?

Christians have christian names, not terrorist name!

Do you know that they are millions of muslims in the arab world rooting for osama obama and not for Jesus?

Posted by: Chris | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The "inexperience" fiction is hollow. Obama has the experience JFK and Bill Clinton had in terms of time spent, maybe more. It's not time spent in the Senate but effectiveness, and Hillary has accomplished nothing of merit. Obama has tackled big issues--campaign finance reform, immigration, environomental issues, support for wounded vets. To quote David Stirling on another forum:

"In Illinois, he authored and passed the most significant ethics reform in a generation. He expanded health care access. He reformed the criminal justice system to reduce convictions of innocent people -- a politically hazardous proposition which involved his winning over legislators, police, and a governor who were all originally unwilling to touch the topic.
In the US Senate, he's improved our program to deal with what Kerry and Bush both said was the greatest security threat to America -- loose nuclear weapons -- and to lock down old Soviet conventional arms as well. He's worked on creating a plan for dealing with an avian flu epidemic. He helped write major ethics reform, and wrote and passed the "Google for government" bill that creates transparency and accountability in government spending. His record is deep and suggests someone who's both able to work across party lines, and is interested in taking on big issues, even if they aren't well-known or easy.
In his younger days, he was a community organizer, improving housing, helping create access to work for the poor, and registering thousands of new voters.
In law school, he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, arguably the most prestigious position a law student can hold. Heck, he's even a best-selling author.
Point is, Barack Obama has been successful in everything he's tried. Contrast that with Hillary Clinton, who has no major legislation to her name in her eight years in the Senate; whose major responsibilities in the Clinton administration ended in a string of disastrous legal appointments and in the utter failure to enact universal health care; and who voted the wrong way on the most important vote of her Senate career."

We need his kind of "inexperience". If only the world had more of it.

Posted by: zjemi | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Change,Change,Change! Is there any records of anything that Senator Obama has changed in the past? Have not most voters lived through an attempt to change say your
Company's work process? Or for that matter any ofthe things that we humans know and would love to change!

Posted by: owell1 | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bl | February 8, 2008 10:59 AM

Quit parading your cynical view. People are watching C-SPAN and CNN and not the FOX Noise where your views are coming from. You have him because he is black and smart,capable of running this country better than Bush.

Posted by: bigben1986 | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama! Great speaker! Who cares? It will be a miracle if a black man with Hussain middle name gets elected by Americans. Remember, miracles do not happen.

You have a chance that Hillary will be elected in November.

Posted by: bhaskar | February 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Please stop the nonssense of bashing hillary, she is a great, powerful WOMAN, SENTATOR and may other things. who does have a strong character and style. if you think she is going away, think agian. Obama is shown as being not a political person, who is not ordinary and just like of us whoi has no experience. PLEASE.... STOP... THERE!!! Hillary will win the democrat party, Get out BUSH AND UR WHOLE CABINET of nonsense performance....

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Look Hillary is winning the votes of less educated folks. They dont understand that a 5 year interest freeze will make the rate excesivelly high so we will go further into recession. It is basic economics stupid high school drop outs

Posted by: Sam | February 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

it amazes me that so many people are happy with the washington status quo. they look at obama's message of change and a better future and rather than getting excited, they become afraid of that change. hillary clinton is the candidate that represents the bitter, divisive, corrupt status-quo. she's putting her boot on the neck of hope and trying to scare people into voting for her.

what about the last 20+ years of bitterness and anger makes people hungry for 8 more years of it?

Posted by: sd | February 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Ryan, You are correct. Some of the crazy and idiotic posts are ridiculous. What is amazing about this year is the engagement of people. The vote totals in every state is unbelievable. I just want people to go vote!!!!!!

Posted by: Eric | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh dear, I just saw the post ahead of mine.
Do I have a "Christian name" or not? How can I tell?

Posted by: zjemi | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

In 1976, in the rush to get the Nixon years out of our recent memory, the American public elected Jimmy Carter as president. Remember the inflation, the era when the word "recession" was born, the failed foreign policies? This doesn't make President Carter a bad person, just a right and good man at the wrong time.

If history repeats itself (it does) then shouldn't we even consider this scenario today? We're in a rush to run away from the Bush Presidency and we could be running into another disaster -- with Barack at the helm.

Let's consider the times we live in, along with the candidate, before we rush to judgment. There is a time for Barack -- it's just not now!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I tend to think that the "yo(sic) go girl" comments and the racially incindiary comments against obama are republicans in disguise attempting to stir up some muck.
E. Hampshire

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I DO NOT CARE IF REPUBLICANS WIN, ALL I KNOW IS THAT IF HILLARY IS THE ONE THEN, AM VOTING FOR MACAIN

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I ususally don't bother commenting about such petty things, but the most extreme comments here also include the worst grammar and spelling that I've ever seen.

Posted by: Deaniac | February 8, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

most of the comments here you see with strong emotions are from people didn't think. The country got Bush and got war because of them. We need cool head like Clintons.

Posted by: independent thinker | February 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Re "we could be running into another disaster ..." yes - if HRC wins it will be a disaster.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

COOL HEADS CAN GO GET HEADS SOMEWHERE

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

For those who would listen to others saying that Obama doesn't have any ideas, do your homework. Go to his website, listen to what he has to say (the same should be done for all candidates). I'm voting for him because he truly stands for all Americans and has the temperment and communication skills to potentially unite this country as no one has for decades. Hillary might have earned her right to be president and some might be longing for a redemption for the Clintons as I was, but this election cannot be about the Clintons it has to be about a future for ALL of America. It's time for liberals and Democrats to acknowledge that legitimate fellow Americans live in Red States and that there is more to our great country than the interests of New York and California and their neighboring liberal states. I'm a 55 year old woman, known by friends as a knee jerk liberal who doesn't feel my rights as a woman will be threatened by the nomination of Barack Obama.

Posted by: Shannon S | February 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it's wise to use "head" and Clinton in the same sentence. Was that posted by Monica L?

Posted by: wds | February 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It is very sad that many people are deciding the election based on "feel good" oratory or slogans. "Compassionate Conservative" in 2000 = "Change" in 2008. When will this stop? People, please let somebody who can run the government.

BTW, for those with fixations with Iraq, Obama was not in the Senate in 2002, therefore, he could not vote. His position then was meaningless, just like my position at that time.

Also, as a minority, I don't share the same background as Obama. I did not live in a white family, where my mother had a PhD. Except for his color, he shared more a white upbringing, than that of a minority. In short, I could not identify myself in him, and his antics are stupid. Please listen to him discuss his health plan and his "present" votes. If you find his reasoning sound, no argument will convince you otherwise. If not Hillary, McCain will have to do.

Posted by: CP Cook | February 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Ever since super Tuesday, the comments pages of the major newspapers have become full of (often intentional) provocation and anger. But BL probably isn't a Clinton supporter... that stuff is more likely the republicans testing out stuff for the general election. I suspect the comments pages will soon become nearly unreadable.

The advantage of Obama as a candidate is that the hit pieces and lies are kind of harder to believe about him than about your typical career politician. Barack was a community organizer. He sticks with his principles. If McCain doesn't, himself, stick with his principles and disavow this hate-inciting rhetoric during the general election, McCain will become tarnished with BL's kind of hate in the general election and McCain will completely lose the independents who vote on perceived honesty.

You'll see a lot worse than BL all over the internet right through November. Learn to pray for them or ignore them...they are just trying to pollute minds and incite anger. Barack is a Christian who, while not perfect, knows that he is not. But uniting the country is a big order and there are many who profit from our divisions.

Don't let your vote be suppressed by anger, doubt, and fear. Vote your conscience. Vote unity. Vote faith, hope and love. Those are American values.

Posted by: one of the Franks | February 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

@bl people like you should try to change the constitution and get a third Bush administration. Unfortunately for you that's never gonna happen. Obama will beat Hillary first by 53-47 and will than beat McCain by 70-30. In some red states he is now already getting more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined. Sorry cheap republican your party is going down as America had enough of the lowest quality leadership we've seen for 7 years.

Posted by: John | February 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

A Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is the Clintonites' wet dream. It ain't gonna happen, because while it might be good for Clinton, it's a disaster for Obama. Clinton has enormously high unfavorables. Even as a VP candidate she'd be a polarizing figure who would unify and mobilize Republicans and drive away a lot of independents. She adds nothing and detracts a lot from an Obama presidential candidacy. Besides, there's that lurking specter of Bill, who's made it pretty clear he doesn't want to settle for second fiddle even in a Hillary administration. Can you imagine the mess he'd make if he tried to throw his ex-presidential weight around as vice-presidential spouse and "senior adviser", in an administration headed by a man for whom so far he's shown nothing but disdain? No thanks.

If Clinton is the presidential nominee, she'll have a lot of repair work to do with the Democrats' black base. Obama as VP could help a lot in that regard, both because of the genuine affection and admiration he's inspired in the black community, and because even electing a black VP would be an historic first. But the good will Obama has earned among independents, moderate Republicans, and young voters would vanish in an instant, and he'd come out of a losing Clinton campaign against McCain with diminished stature---all the more so if he's asked to play the traditional partisan attack dog role of the VP nominee, the only way the Clintons know to play the game. This is completely out of character for him and for the trans-partisan politics of unity he's trying to build. If I were advising him, I'd urge him not to touch a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket with a 10-foot pole. It effectively reduces him to just another partisan-politics-as-usual figure, and ends his role as the leader of a tranformative political movement. Which, come to think of it, is probably exactly what the Clinton camp wants.

Posted by: Brad K | February 8, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I am one of the millions of Democrats who love the inspirational Barack Obama (even though I disagree with his position on driver's licenses for the illegal immigrants). I am also one of the many Democrats who will stay home and not vote if Hillary is the nominee. She IS that divisive! Fellow Democrats, if you nominate her, I believe she will lose to McCain and it will be four more years of failed military policies destroying our economy and our national pride. I would love to see a woman as president, but she is the wrong one.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | February 8, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

TSR:

Obama only agreed to 2 more debates instead of the 5 Hillary's campaign requested, NOT because he "can't stand up to a woman," as you so ridiculously stated.

The reason he won't debate her 5 times is because Hillary and her party are freaking out because Obama's grassroots campaign is beating the snot out of her,s and she doesn't have the funds to compete with Obama via television.

He's not a fool, tsr. He'll debate her until he's blue in the face if he wishes, but to him, it's more important to go out and spread his message to the people, instead of trade blows with the likes of Hillary on national television.

Bottom line: Hillary had to dump $5 million of her own personal funds into her campaign because she's just unable to compete with Obama in that department, and due to that fact, she's SCRAMBLING to figure out a way to maintain exposure.

If Bush is the devil, Hillary is a demon.

Posted by: Puck | February 8, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to CP Cook, the voice of reason crying in the wilderness to look past the romantics of the Obama campaign to the facts of his campaign.

Posted by: SAS | February 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

LOL, at all the old lady Billary supporters and blatantly racist posts here badmouthing Obama. The status quo candidates are very threatened by Obama. If people really think Hillary will change things just look at how much money she accepts from special interest groups. The experience thing is a joke. We need a president with good judgment and Obama has that. Hillary runs on her husbands accomplishments and the power of corporate donations.

Posted by: threatened by change | February 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at home many awful people read and post to the washington Post. You should be ashamed of yourselves for the bitter hate-filled messages.

Posted by: Kamran | February 8, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

No Hillary Rodham Clinton on any ticket! The only way I will not vote for Obama is having Hillary on any ticket in any way. Obama/Richardson works for me. I won't vote for a Clinton. Ever!

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

I didn't realize Jesus was running for office.

Posted by: Puck | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the only one capable of healing our great nation!

Posted by: Obama | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Funny.

Obama the change agent. Obama the uniter. Now we have Obama the healer.

Should we expect the changing of water into wine and walking on water soon?

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

If HRC is the nominee, she _needs_ Obama as VP ... if Obama is the nominee, he equally needs NOT to have HRC as VP.

Obama's best shot to beat McCain is to have someone with international experience like Bill Richardson as VP without the Billary devisiveness that will draw republicans to the polls.

Richardson's selection would (probably) be a net positive, offending racists who would be offended by Obama's race anyway, but drawing in some percentage of those hispanics who might illogically distrust Obama otherwise. His executive experience and UN/ambassadorial experiences cover many of Obama's weaknesses.

If McCain (hopefully) selects Condi Rice for VP, the racial element becomes unpredictably messy since even McCain supporters (like me) can see that he has an unusually high chance of dying while in office, putting his VP as president in under 4 years from now.

Obama's best shot overall therefore is to cover his international weaknesses and concentrate people's attention on McCain's age and angry personality. It is likely that in any debates, McCain can be goaded into an emotionally inappropriate response.

Additionally, McCain may be vulnerable to age + campaign-exhaustion crankiness or slowness, all of which will aid Obama's projection of youth (not that it helped Mondale vs Reagan).

If enough people vote emotionally, Obama stands a real chance ... so long as he keeps enough people from noticing that the few issues that he takes a stand on are socialist enough to dissuade moderates (like me).

(Incidentally, I'd have (probably) voted for Obama over any Republican theocrat and any Republican over Hillary)

Posted by: Sarnac | February 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is looking strong, on many aspects, including the Internet:

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: David | February 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Since we're talking split tickets on this thread, I wonder how many Clinton supporters love *her* personally, and how many simply admire her for being a strong woman trying to break through the highest glass ceiling in the country. I think Obama-McCaskill or Obama-Sebelius would be dynamite tickets. Both women are charismatic, extremely competent, have great favorables in red states and are strong voices for CHANGE who ran for offices it looked like the democrats could never win.

Posted by: John M. | February 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I was looking at the election results, and noticed that Obama's support from the African-Americans is harboring 90%. Then, he gets 30% of Asians and Hispanics, and slightly higher percentage of Whites.

There is a huge discrepancy in the voting patterns between the African-Americans and the other ethnicities. So much for the "uniter", huh?

One question that begs to be asked here is why is it that Obama gets 90% of the African-Americans, but not the rest? Can one imagine if the Whites vote in the same way?

Posted by: CP Cook | February 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

All I have to say to Virginia Obama supporters: get out and vote! Don't assume he's going to win based on poll numbers (we learned that lesson in New Hampshire). Go to the polls. Tell your family and friends to do the same. If we want to turn Obama into the genuine front-runner, we need not just a win, but a blow-out in the Potomac Primaries (and LA, WA, NE, ME, HI). VOTE!

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know where in Alexandria Barack will be campaigning? I've been dying to see him, and to be able to do it within walking distance would be amazing. I couldn't find anything on his site about it...

Posted by: ModestProposal | February 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Listen, Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself from consideration for any high office. It's not just that she's hiding what she did during those famous thirty-five years of experience, which is not great for faith-building. It's that she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq without convincing evidence of imminent danger to the United States (any reasonable layman could see that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was 100% bogus, an artist's concept of what Dick Cheney wanted the public to believe), and has been unable up to this very day to admit her error. It's because she thinks that sometimes you just have to torture. It's because she isn't smart enough to learn that you don't give George W. Bush extraordinary powers, because she continues to cave into his every demand. It's because she refused to intelligently approach the problem of healthcare in the US with a secretive and imperious approach of "her plan" which not only went nowhere, but helped implode the Democratic Congress. It's because she has run a vicious and demeaning campaign and she and her co-president have shown that they are willing to do anything for political power, a great recommendation to make sure they never, ever enjoy it. It's because she can't carry a general election. It's because she is willing to change any rules, any time when it suits her purposes, e.g. Nevada, Florida, Michigan, etc. It's because she is a divisive figure, even the type of militant feminist vote that has been so crucial to her few electoral gains is divisive; when the grizzled, battle-weary members of the Womens' Liberation Movement became the down with men movement, it became a negative force in society.
Senator Clinton is anti-hope, anti-tomorrow, anti-big "D" Democrat because she is anti-small "d" democrat--no respecter of process she.
To some outrageous suggestions that were made by some posters, the very notion of Clinton-Obama is offensive and would mark the end of Senator Obama's claim to confidence and trust. It would mark the capitulation of Hope to Cynicism, no doubt in the name of party unity. At least Mr. McCain has been fairly honorable in his conduct during this campaign, until he got to Florida with his wild claims about Mitt Romney. Many, many Obama supporters would undoubtedly be disappointed by his actions. Legions of voters would plain not vote for any ticket headed by Hillary Clinton, for it's a ticket to nowhere.

Posted by: Rarignac | February 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

hillary on the ticket = a republican white house because EVERY fundamentalist neo-con is frothing in hate of her, and will come out JUST to vote against HER.

1/2 the dem,ocrats and independents like me HATE HER AND WILL NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS VOTE FOR HER BECAUSE SHE CANNOT BE TRUSTED IF SHE CANNOT GIVE STRAIGHT ANSWERS ABOUT HOW MUCH OF YOUR PAY GETS GARNISHED VIA HILLARYCARE, among other things she can't give a straight answer to.

Keep the lobbiest candidate in the senate and vote OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: JBE | February 8, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

If Obama were to accept a VP slot, he would undermine seriously his political future. He's billed himself as being against the status quo, and said numerous times that the Clintons are a part of that status quo. Turning around and then joining up with the status quo would prevent him from ever being a credible anti-status-quo candidate in the future, and would permanently reduce his appeal to independents and disaffected republicans. He morphs into a part of the democratic machine if he does that, and his career goes off on a very different trajectory.

Posted by: Brendan | February 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Im surprised that there are so many racists and bigots in this country who hide behind their computers. Cowards!!!!

Posted by: American | February 8, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fear you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win!

The era of Rove-Clinton politics is coming to and end. America is wiser now because of the cr_p they put us through over the past 16 years. It's over. You can save your time.

Clinton has 1000 times more dirt on her than McCain does.
McCain was part of the Keating scandal and he's not even liked by his own party.

Obama will win VA, MD, DC, WA, ME, LA, and NE in the next 4 days. He will have won over half the states in the union. The media will be all over that and Clinton will sink in the polls! How much money does Clinton have? Better use it wisely.

So sad...

Posted by: Coming Awakening | February 8, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

BL,

You are a racist. No doubt about that!!

Posted by: Rob | February 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

What is important is not the individual policy positions. What is important is a person's perspective on problem solving.

Hillary's habitual perspective is to go to war with those who disagree with her.

Barack's is to find common ground and build from there.

America NEEDS a new perspective if we're going to work together.

Barack Obama has the VASTLY better perspective. and just taking that stance would make me a part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in HRC's eyes...and an "enemy."

So I'm voting for Barack Obama.

TOGETHER - YES WE CAN (heal our nation and our world)!

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | February 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08. Please go vote Virgina...no repeats of New Hampshire. Hillary negative numbers are too high!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

And on the "go out and vote" note, People of OHIO, I BEG of you, go out and vote Obama. Hillary think's she's got Ohio on lockdown and that she'll win it in a cinch. I hate false confidence. OHIO for OBAMA!

Posted by: Puck | February 8, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm just an old broad but--

He didn't salute the flag or honor the national anthem until a camera captured him looking bored and distracted. Of course neither the Kenyan nor the Indonesian national flags were flying that day.

He snorted coke and smoked rope. Enough said about his personal commitment to rule of law. He broke it. He has reflected on it. He is absolved.

His wife belittled him as an incompetent dope until his handlers (probably Oprah's PR staff) stuck a proverbial sock in her mouth.

Doesn't it bother anyone that whenever he appears with Oprah and his wife on the same platform, Oprah is always between them?

Why isn't the Illinois election oversight body investigating Oprah's interference in the election process?

What does Barak Obama offer other than a resonant baritone coached by Oprah Winfrey's groveling minions? The Big Mouthed "O" as de factor president? NO thank you! His vision is a stale rehash of that old Coke commercial featuring a bunch of hippies with candles whining about teaching the world to sing.

Barak Obama bought for you, courtesy of the richest woman in world. George Soros, yield.

Posted by: 59yofemale | February 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

We Dems are toast this year - we have culled the candidates down to two really bad choices.

That said, I'd rather see Obama be nominated just to make the McCain campaign put itself to the test. If it's HRC, the general election contest will be defined by the Clinton Restoration issue. With Obama, McCain will have to either make the case that foreign policy (his stronger suit) trumps Obama's lack of experience/judgment or come up with some thoughtful policy positions on domestic issues that resonate with the voters (particularly around pocketbook issues).

Another thought - the Dems have been running their campaigns like they are seeking to defeat Bush and running nomination campaigns that address Bush's liabilities. They are not seeing the contest as being for an open seat where they compete against the Republicans candidates. It may feel good to bash Bush but what's the point at this point?

Since the GOP is focused on getting the conservative wing on-board, now is the time for the Dems to start tacking to the center and capture that space. Unfortunately, they are still caught up pandering to the liberal wing of the party in order to get the nomination. That means the same slogans about healthcare, green technologies, and pulling out of Iraq. So that opportunity to capture the center will come to McCain before either Dem gets the chance.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | February 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I love to hear a good speech that talks about change in a time that it is greatly needed. I have lived in many different places both in America and abroad. What I have learned is to look past the stump speech to what they have done, how they handle scrutiny and what are they really saying.
Lets look at some of this, is the war you issue? Who was right on day one but couldn't vote a good stumping point however Hillary has the support of the military commanders that want to get out not Obama. Who in the military see him as commander-in-chief? OK its because he wants change right. People in authority in the military just don't like him right its not that they feel his qualifications are lacking.
How about Obama's serge of late? After all he is starting to gain on the Clinton machine right? Could it be the areas he is in maybe, how about Sen. Kennedy you know the Washington fixture one of the biggest problems in DC? Think if Obama wins the nomination he will owe a lot to Teddy. I would not want Sen. Kennedy with more power than he has now he's what we want change from.
Lets look at something else there is a war on and its for control of the white house. Both parties are doing everything they can do to get it Hard core conservatives will vote for McCain to win. Do you really think they would tell the other side who they want to run against when the primary is not over? They know this will sway party loyalists away from that person. There is a lot more that they can do to sink Obama and your party can't tell them to tone it down or take it easy on Obama. Sen. Kennedy just added more targets that they can hit. Is this is obama's idea of change its like saying we will clean up the Government lets put Teddy in charge.

Posted by: independent voter | February 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Poor "bl" and "mary." So much hatred to carry around. For "bl" - as you know, Barack Obama is not a Muslim and never attended a Muslim school. For "mary" - if you want people to listen to your ideas, please refer to a dictionary, learn how to spell, and create sentences that make sense. For those of you who think all little old white ladies are Hillary- supporters, I'm white, 70, and will vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by: edda bailey | February 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The repeated maligning of Obama by twisting his name makes at least one supporter want to retort with ``Hitlery Clinton'' or some other trash talk.
If Hillary had testicles or if her last name was Jones - if she had to run for the job strictly on her merits - this race would have been over in the first week.

Posted by: unclechet | February 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's the reality people:

Independents, youth, white men and even some Republicans are more behind Barack Obama for President. If Democrats REALLY want to get back in the White House, they should get behind Obama too. If Hillary wins the nomination, Independents and white men will vote McCain, the youth will not even come out of the house in Novemeber and you know what the wavering Republicans will do. It's just how America (and the world) feels about the Clintons right now, period. I beleive Hillary should go as Barack's running mate. Put your party and emotions aside and deal with the reality: Obama IS the best candidate!

Posted by: dinla | February 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

59yofemale:

So, I take it you prefer Ellen.

Investigate Oprah? Oprah de-facto president? Oprah's handelers are training him and cleaning him up?

Wow. You're really pulling at straws with that one. And as far as "smoking rope" goes, at least he has the decency to admit it, AND admit inhaling, unlike Hillary's better half. After all, "inhaling is kind of the point."

If Oprah endorsing Obama and Obama sparking the grass are your two main issues with Obama, please, stay home on election day.

Posted by: Puck | February 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Dems must hold Hillary acountable for the war in Iraq.

We will continue to lose our moral authority on the world stage, and as a people we will sell our soul, if we do not insist that our representatives and leaders pay a price, when their vote causes the needless suffering of millions of people. HRC, for whatever reason, authorized a pre-emptive war in Iraq. It was as wrong then, as it is now. Hundreds of thousands are dead, and trillions of dollars have been spent.

The most important thing we can do as Americans is to demand that the leaders who got us into this mess because they misled us or failed to use their votes and voices to speak out, not be voted in as President of our nation. When it mattered most, Hillary failed her country. End of story. Vote O.

Posted by: maddymappo | February 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The lead for OBAMA is good news, now that it has become clear the republican nomination will go to John McCain, only BARACK OBAMA can defeat him in the November election. Hilary has far too much baggage including the past.

OBAMA has the real momentum it is up to those voters in these upcoming primaries to give him a clear mandate so BARACK OBAMA can get down to the real job of defeating McCain.

Posted by: John B Sheffield | February 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Anything is better than another Republican in the White House, but I hope it is Obama and I hope he does not pick Hillary as the running mate. I'm no fan of dynasty and I've had enough drama. She makes a fine Senator from New York. With that said, I will say that Bill Clinton as Attorney General dishing out a little pay back is a rather delicious thought.

Posted by: Sara B. | February 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be very bad for Obama. Not only will they most certainly lose to McCain, but it would effectively nullify Obama's chances of running again.

If you remember way back when Bush first became president, another black man by the name of Colin Powell was appointed the first Black Secretary of State. He was popular, articulate, and intelligent. At the time, there was even talk he might be a possible presidential candidate one day. After being scapegoated into being the poster-boy for the Iraq invasion, any ideas of that were firmly dashed.

I see a similar future for Obama if he does not win the nomination, and chooses to run with Hillary. The "stain" of being so close to a co-presidency that divisive would only hurt him in the long run. If he does not win the nomination, I hope he continues to serve in the Senate, and when McCain is done after 4-8 years, I sincerely hope he would run again.

The Republican party seems to have figured it out. Nominate a moderate, and you might have a chance of keeping the presidency, even after Bush. It sadly appears that we may be on our way to seeing the DNC's amazing ability to snatch defeat from the gaping jaws of victory come into play once again.

Disclaimer: I am a Republican moderate (yes, we do exist), and I would never, ever vote for Hillary. Bill had his run, and a co-presidency does not fall into my interpretation of the Constitution.

Posted by: tsu777 | February 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama was ahead in polls in NH and CA yet lost both and Billary is slightly ahead in delegates. He can beat McCain but Billary can not. Obama has to overcome 795 super delegates and the FL and MI delegates even if he wins all the future primaries. The Bolshevik Clinton machine has it all rigged for a takeover of the USA which means Chinese Communists will be sold or given all our military secrets especially Loral Corp giving more missile secrets to Chicoms. Be afraid of Billary, very afraid if you want to be free of state control of your life and religion.

Posted by: mascmen7 | February 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

This contest defines the Democratic Party. The open display of diversity boils the contest down to the core issues; ultimately, the issues are what are important. By celebrating up front our different creeds, races, genders and economics, we recognize they cannot define our politics; any more than having blue eyes defines a good engineer or a good teacher. Listening to the Republican debates vs. the Democratic debates, I know all over again why I am a Democrat. It is about the people, it is about hearing the people and being responsible to have a good government for and by all the people. Whether Obama or Clinton, I will support this party. In this time of choosing, I support Senator Clinton. Her positions on health care, ending the war in Iraq, and the economy have consistently been better articulated, better detailed and more thoughtful. Her long track record of embracing diversity and attending the struggles of the people inspires me. I hope the people of Virginia have the time to examine these issues closely. This country needs the strength of Hillary Clinton to lead us in these economically depleted and war-torn times.

Posted by: Bonnie Epperly-Trudel | February 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Silly mantras from the Obama-haters:

- Obama has no record (this is nonsense, he has a substantial record as an elected official)
- Obama is just rhetoric, and he doesn't want to talk about issues (more nonsense, as he's talking about the issues all the time, if you just care to listen)
AND NOW THE NEW ONE:
- Obama is too popular to be the real thing (yeah, the fact that people are excited about him, as opposed to his opponents who are exactly like 99.9 per cent of all the other politicians, really must prove that there is something weird about Obama...)

If those mantras are all the Obama-haters have, they are clutching at straws in desparation...

Posted by: hmm | February 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

All of these comments about Hillary being unelectable or the Clinton's being so unpopular are garbage. Why do Dems of all people buy into this GOP nonsense? Bill WON two terms and his approval rating was at 70% when he left office.

The fact is, that on THE wedge issues in this campaign, Iraq, immigration, economy, Hillary is significantly more moderate than Obama.

Obama is the only candidate to support driver's licenses for illegals.

He is the only candidate to support an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

He is the only candidate to support increasing payroll taxes.

For all of the "hatred" towards Hillary, she is winning the moderate vote in swing states like New Mex and Missouri while Obama wins the liberal-elite voters.

Let's not forget, there are no caucuses in November.

Anecdotal evidence and right-wing commentary aside, Hillary stacks up much better than Obama in the general election.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary really knows the issues. Obama reminds me too much of Jimmy Carter. He wanted to negotiate everything, paralyzed us in Iran (which is the root of today's problems), we had high inflation and 13% mortgage rates. Too many of Carter's advisors are Obama's advisors. I say "Go Hillary".

Posted by: Nancy | February 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, in the upcoming debates Mr. Obama will expand on the manner in which he came to his opinion to oppose war in Iraq. He should tell Americans what process he used to come to that particular conclusion. Did he have knowledge of the situation in Iraq? What type of intelligence reports did he analyze? Did he know that it was President's Bush's intention to get approval for war for one reason whilst he had other reasons in his mind such as converting Iraq to a democracy, disbanding the Iraq army and inviting insurgents and terrorists to be part of a pre-emptive war in Iraq? Was he just reacting to a sermon given in Church, or was he reacting to information from unknown sources? If he did not have proper information, then his judgment must be questioned even if he is/was correct.

Is Mr. Obama going to use the same method he used to form his opinion on war with Iraq, from the first day in the White House, if elected? Or would he now wait to analyze factual information, such as the intelligence report, before passing judgment on critical issues such as a declaration of war against a nation that is a threat to the U.S.?

Although both Senators Obama and Clinton have not addressed the unity of the party, it was disappointing to hear Obama supporters state that while Hillary might offer Mr. Obama the Vice President position, Mr. Obama would not make a similar offer to Senator Clinton. Mr. Obama pledges to unite the country and change the world, but if his supporters are correct, he would not act to unify the democratic party. He would be the second President in a row pledging to be a unifier, who wouldnt be really interested in unity. I would think that Mr. Obama would be first in line to do what would unify the democratic party, if it should come to that.

If Mr. Obama is not committed to first unify the democratic party, then how could Americans have faith in anything that he has promised. Many of us have learned that charity begins at home, and currently, Mr. Obama's political home is the democratic party.

Posted by: CalP | February 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

trs, it is so transparently clear why Clinton is pushing for more debates - her campaign in comparatively broke and one sure and cost-effective way to spread her own message in the absence of pricey ad time is to wage rhetorical war in the atmosphere of a debate. The Obama campaign has plenty of cash and raising more each day, which is why Clinton only began airing ads in Virginia this weekend (if I recollect) and Obama's campaign has been doign so since last week. This campaign is far too critical to be won or lost as a result of some zinger achieved in the midst of a debate. I don't need anymore "read my lips" one-liners. I need someone who can lead us in reviving our economy, brining our troops home, not being tricked into supporting unnecessary wars, finding solutions to our global environmental problems, and someone who can uplift and inspire persons across political as racial as racial lines. Clinton is far too devisive and she more than he demonstrates a penchant for win at any cost politics. As a long-time Clinton supporter throughout Bill's presidency, South Carolina demosntrated to what the Clintons are all about. That coupled with my belief that a Clinton candidacy would result in a record Republican turnout just to keep her at any cost out of the White House. We sorely need a Democrat there now but I for one and sick of Bushes and Clintons. We've had 20 years of that. It is time for proactive change.

Posted by: wcc | February 8, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone moderate this board? The Post should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this stuff. I will be cancelling my subscription.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

CalP:

Let's say Obama extended the hand of friendship to Hillary and an offer was made to her to be his running made as VP. Do you REALLY think she would accept such an offer? Highly unlikely. Hillary is hellbent on becoming President of the United States, and she would (probably) take it as an insult to be offered anything short of the Democratic presidential nomination. No, no. IF Obama were to make that offer, Hillary would laugh loudly (three times) and decline.

Posted by: Puck | February 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I love hope and changes, too.
VOTE OBAMA.
And me, Benny Hinn for Vice President

Posted by: Benny Hinn | February 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, have to leave now to avoid all the traffic jams that have already started for the Obama rally downtown.

Clinton only got 5000 people. You can seat 5000 people in just one section of Key Arena where Obama is ...

Posted by: Will in Fired Up Seattle | February 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I am a registered Democrat and college educated professional 57 year old woman. I am NOT enamored at all by Hillary Clinton. She has absolutely nothing in common with me or my female friends, professional or nonprofessional. I couldn't put my hands on $5000 let alone $5 million. It's beyond my understanding why middle class women and Latinos think she cares about them at all. All she cares about is feeding her ego. I would love to see a woman as our president, but the right woman, not Billary.
I have a simple slogan that's easily understood:

OBAMA IS THE FUTURE

CLINTON IS SO LAST CENTURY

Vote for our future

Posted by: ripley723 | February 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't believe the garbage put out by "bl". The usual Dixiecrat-Republican nastiness and falsehoods are beginning already. Vielleicht sollte ich ihm in seiner Muttersprache antworten?

Posted by: vacymro | February 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

For some of the losers on this board who pretend Obama is a muslim, they will hang themselves when he is the president.

Rednecks from the past have no chance of reviving the past glory of the 40 & 50' KKK.

The country outgrown your hate.

Posted by: DAVID DUKE | February 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Let's get this blacks for Obama story right for the last time. Black voters have supported the Clintons 100% since Bill first came on the scene. These primaries would have split the black votes between Obama and Hillary... HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR BILL & HILLARY CLINTONS DISGUSTING ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THIS RACE ABOUT BLACKS VS WHITES. Black people resent being used like that especially after giving the Clintons whole-hearted support for so many years. It was a vile attempt to win at any cost and makes their character downright obnoxious. So if you want to talk about blacks voting for Obama, you can thank Bill Clinton for that one.

Posted by: nerakami | February 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Both of these two candidates will probably not perform worse than John Kerry in 2004.

Both of these candidates have pluses and minuses. Let us look at few states in play.

1) Arkansas (6) - Clinton has better chance wining this state than Obama
2) California (55) - Depeding upon how far the primary goes, it could be a problem for Obama, especially running against McCain with Gov. Arnold support.
3) Colorado (9) - Obama has better chance wining this state than Clinton.
4) Florida (27) - Clinton has some chance of winning this state. Obama has none.
5) Missouri (11)- Obama has better chance of winning this state than Clinton.
6) Iowa (7) - Obama has already won this state. Clinton finished third.
7) Ohio (20) - Clinton has very good chance of winning this state. High risk with Obama.
8) Tennessee (11) - Clinton has some chance. Obama has none.
8) Virginia (13) - Good chance of winning this state by Obama.

Posted by: Clinton and Obama Supporter | February 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe some of the racist comments the Washington Post is allowing to be posted here. I'm all for the First Amendment, but this is still a private forum and therefore subject to the Post's discretion. Way to go WaPo!

Posted by: dc_counsel | February 8, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I found this interesting:

"Forty-nine of the Clintons' Lincoln Bedroom guests are among the 250 HillRaisers listed on Mrs. Clinton's campaign Web page, who have pledged to gather, or "bundle," at least $100,000 in donations. Some have promised to raise $1 million or more for the 2008 campaign, the most costly in U.S. history."

Back to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom!!!

Posted by: Beth | February 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

CalP and 59yofemale,

I'm sorry, could you speak up? I can't hear you over the roar of how awesome Barack Obama is.

O8ama!

Posted by: HJB | February 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's a quote from Yahoo news today:

"For the first time in three decades, Republicans are likely to nominate a presidential candidate (McCain) who lost the conservative and evangelical votes in the primaries. Even as McCain reached out to them Thursday during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, some made no attempt to hide their distaste."

Now, I'm sure you saw the news and heard McCain get BOOED. Since, many conservatives also favor Obama, he is almost certain to get their votes as well. Now, do you really think Hillary has a chance for the White House? I like Hillary but it's not gonna happen for her and if she gets nominated you might as well take T.O.'s advice and "get your popcorn ready" and watch this war and the rest of Bush's policies continue for, at least, another 100... I mean, 4 years with McCain.

Posted by: dinla | February 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

A Clinton/Obama ticket will kill all the enthusiasm this country has for either Obama or Clinton. The fact is nny VP post in a Clinton administration will have no meaning since Bubba and Hillary will take up the first and second postiions. A VP for Clinton will be just on paper and for attending state funerals. But a Obama/Clinton ticket will keep the white house strong.

Posted by: Rosemary McCalif | February 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

A conservative who wouldn't vote for McCain because he's not conservative enough is not about to vote for Obama. Keep dreaming, er, hoping.

Posted by: rb | February 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

To bl,
To set the record straight, Obama is not for the legalization of drugs, he is for the decriminalization of [some] drugs. In other words making it a civil offense, perhaps a ticket instead of jail time.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

How many times do you intend to post that, "bl"? Do you think it gets wittier with age?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/14/clinton_obama_and_a_dangerous.html

Posted by: Deja Vu All Over Again | February 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I am a white mom. I didn't raise my two daughters to go after a black leader. I've told them that our forefathers didn't come to this country to be ruled by the native people or the black people. We are all for Hillary.

Posted by: Sue Thomas | February 8, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Sue Thomas:

You're right - our forefathers came here to escape oppression and intolerance - which you appear to be the embodiment of. Well done.

Posted by: Puck | February 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Sue, you're a troll, go back under your rock.

Posted by: rb | February 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

To: Fellow Progressives. Re: Hillary. Conservative Republicans make no secret about their contempt for her. True, many Republicans who would not otherwise vote may vote for McCain just to prevent another Clinton administration. But it's not clear to me that their enthusiasm would not be equaled or surpassed by enthusiasm on the left -- for a woman president, but far more importantly, for someone who would reverse the disastrous policies of the utterly irredeemable Bush administration. Polls showing McCain beating Hillary at this point are pretty meaningless. I fear that the claim that Hillary is divisive becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you honestly don't like her, fine, but don't vote for Obama just because she's "unelectable." If the Democrats can't win this election, they need to find another line of work. That said, this former Edwards supporter will vote for either Democrat over McCain. He's certainly no W, but his policies on tax cuts, health care, Iraq, abortion rights, judicial appointments, and so on, are not that different from W's. You would vote for him over Hillary??

Posted by: TD | February 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

SueThomas,

I feel bad for your daughters. You "didn't raise your daughter to go after a black leader"? For that reason, your daughters will date black men. You are scum!

Posted by: dinla | February 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a junior senator with little to show for. His wife, Michelle, is a divisive figure with a chip on her shoulder who says that she is not sure whether she will support Hillary if she gets the nomination. Michelle is a typical sore loser.
Ask yourself if this is what you want in the White House.
Hillary is right for the middle class, the poor and minorities!

Posted by: mehuwss | February 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand the unhealthy fascination with an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket among some pundits. I am in Omaha, Nebraska and cannot tell you how many people have expressed their intense passionate hatred towards Hillary Clinton. It is irrational. It is insane. It is also quite real. If Clinton wins the nomination, then Obama should bide his time and run against John McCain in 2012. Obama would be well served with Tom Daschle as VP. Daschle would help him get workable compromises in the Senate as LBJ was able to help JFK. No Democrat has won Nebraska since 1964, but an Obama/Daschle ticket would have an even chance of winning Nebraska, South Dakota and Kansas (among many others.)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

That was about the weakest trolling attempt I've seen this month, but thanks for trying!

Posted by: HJB | February 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

mehuwss,

I'm not sure I'd vote for her either - not over sour grapes, but because I just don't like her politics or her personality. What's your point?

The straw-grasping from you people is really quite amusing to watch.

Posted by: HJB | February 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

To CL Cook, why does Barack need the same background as you to receive your vote? I'm black and I didn't grow up like you either so does that make me less black? Do you think whites ponder if white candidates grew up like them before voting?

Your argument sir or madam borders on stupidity. Why vote at all if someone didn't grow up the same as you if that is your litmus test for office? Did Hillary grow up like you? How about Bill? Maybe Bush, McCain or the Kennedys grew up like you. Get my point?

Also, regarding your comment about his present votes, some of those votes where dictated by the party for him to do so. Hillary herself has done it as well. Other votes as he explained and you fail to hear was based on principal.

Do some research and get the facts first.

Posted by: YaChi | February 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

This format where the most recent comment goes to the bottom of the list is kind of dumb

Posted by: Mike | February 8, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I just read that when Michell Obama was asked if she could see herself supporting Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee asnwered "I'd have to think about that, I'd have to think about policies, her approach, her tone." Is Michelle a democrat or is she one of those in the Obamanation that is going to vote republican if Hillary gets the nomination because if she is, the republicans will win the white house. I mean Obama is good but he is not the only one who can change the country. Makes you wonder where the thought that dems will vote republican if Hillary gets the nomination. It isn't coming from the republican blogs, they hate both of them, and it seems they hate Obama more if the postings are a reflection of their true feelings.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 8, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TD | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

All this baby nonsense, I wont vote for so and so , I'll vote for a republican before i will vote for .....

Where is it coming from

I just read that when Michell Obama was asked if she could see herself supporting Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee asnwered "I'd have to think about that, I'd have to think about policies, her approach, her tone." Is Michelle a democrat or is she one of those in the Obamanation that is going to vote republican if Hillary gets the nomination because if she is, the republicans will win the white house. I mean Obama is good but he is not the only one who can change the country. Makes you wonder where the thought that dems will vote republican if Hillary gets the nomination. It isn't coming from the republican blogs, they hate both of them, and it seems they hate Obama more if the postings are a reflection of their true feelings.

Posted by: lndlouis | February 8, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

If nothing else would convince me to vote for Obama, the rabid hate spewing lies I'm seeing from Clinton supporters would convince me not to go anywhere near the Clinton camp.

Posted by: CSteffe | February 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

For all those McCain supporters... feel free to join the military. If you're too old or fat or a self-hating repressed homosexual, encourage your children, family members, and friends to do so, then agree to pay higher taxes to support our permanent war in Iraq. Oh that's right, you guys are mostly hypocritical cheap cowards who love to talk but are too scared to actually fight, and too selfish and cheap to pay for the war. Better to borrow money from China and have your kids foot the bill. Pathetic.

Posted by: Vincent | February 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Am a Democrat,80 years young on only Social Security. If Hillary becomes nominee I will sadly be forced to vote for John McCain. Having watched Clinton machine of the past 35 years am thoroughly disgusted, disenchanted and deceived. Young people get wise and support Obama.

Posted by: 80 year old white woman | February 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

TD, that was an interesting article. But I spy a flawed assumption: it makes much of how Obama scores high points with Republican-leaning voters. But these people won't be voting for him! If Huckabee or a far-right candidate were the GOP nominee, then I could see moderate Republicans voting for Obama. But McCain is the centrist, moderate Republican. The ones who dislike him are the hard-right, who call him a RINO. Those people aren't about to vote for Obama! So the likability of Obama among conservatives doesn't enhance his electability. If he were to become president, it might enhance his ability to get things done across party lines. But I think the only conservatives or independents who'd vote for Obama over McCain would do so because they're against the Iraq war, or because of McCain's age. Obama may be a likable man, but after all, he is liberal on the issues - something he will get hammered on by the GOP if he gets the nomination.

Posted by: rb | February 8, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I think BL and Marry are trying to defend this holy country not to be invaded by a divider whose original country is in Kenya that has riot most of the time. He won't be royal to this holy country but would contribute himself to HIS country. I wonder why the media never dare to call his whole name: Barack Hussein Obama, while Hilary's full name is called most of the time. In the muslim world, if your family is muslim, you are born as muslim. His father was a muslim. Check his book. Folks, think of 911 and we don't want another disaster if B.H.O is elected.

Posted by: Support this country | February 8, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Hill and Bill are all over the major news web sites today -Hillary has the Latino vote. Bill has learned his lesson from 'defending' his wife following the SC primary - There's even a giant photo ad for Clinton's campaign on the front page of CNN.com. Hmm interesting that she's getting all the attention.

After her little woe is me story of having to loan her own money last week, we should be fully reminded of the manipulating ways the Clintons have always brought with them. What a tired story.

Let's not let them take the spotlight off Barack. No more presidential dynasties, please! And I hope Obama doesn't pollute his own integrity by sharing the White House with them.

Posted by: Clintons at it Again | February 8, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"I think BL and Marry are trying to defend this holy country"

Check the First Amendment. This is not a "holy" country for the Christians any more than it is for any other religion.

"not to be invaded by a divider whose original country is in Kenya that has riot most of the time."

Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was from Kansas. He hardly knew his biological father, as his parents separated when he was two years old.

"He won't be royal to this holy country but would contribute himself to HIS country."

Again, "his country" is not Kenya. It's the United States of America.

"I wonder why the media never dare to call his whole name: Barack Hussein Obama, while Hilary's full name is called most of the time."

Probably because of idiots like you who try to use it to play to xenophobic and racist tendencies.

"In the muslim world, if your family is muslim, you are born as muslim. His father was a muslim. Check his book."

...and his mother was a white woman from Kansas who raised him herself - not his father. I'd love to know exactly what book you're reading, aside from The Turner Diaries.

"Folks, think of 911"

...and there went the last ragged particle of your remaining credibility.

Thanks for playing. Now don't leave angry, just leave.

Posted by: HJB | February 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama is an attractive young man
.
There's got to be someone besides his wife that he's slept with during his life.

Why haven't we heard anything about them?

Guess what will happen if we nominate him?

He had to do the cocaine with someone, didn't he?

Its even more creepy if he did it all alone...

Posted by: ILoveAmerica | February 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

There is a reason why Obama supporters don't want to consider a Obama/Clinton ticket and that is because Clinton supporters take this high and mighty position that she must be the number 1. That is BS. He is the electable candidate, he is the one bringing people to the polls and he is the one with a real vision for the country.

Anyone who says Obama is a "loose cannon" or tries to distort his name or religion is being unfair. We should expect and do more.

Posted by: Ado | February 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Our country cannot financially, physically, morally, or emotionally afford another War. We are also sadly at war among ourselves on the basis of race, gender, age, ethnicity, religious and educational background, and financial status. More than ever we need an honest CHANGE agent who will free us from the corruption, intrigue and politics of the PAST.

We need a person like OBAMA the Uniter, Healer, Peace-Maker, Inspirer and Doer who is honest to acknowledge his limitations and mistakes, and is open to learn from others. Arrogant people have led us to the mess we are in.

Posted by: Dawson34@aol.com | February 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters EVERYWHERE should vote, vote, talk, and convince as many others as possible to do the same.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

bl, it is obvious from reading your post that you are on the high end of the iq scale. republican hick from the sticks - brilliant. you are a great ambassador for the gop. makes voting democrat that much sweeter.

Posted by: smartchick | February 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters EVERYWHERE should vote for Hillary Clinton and convince everyone they know to do the same.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama is too liberal. McCain and the right wing will eat that rookie alive. Hillaey is the only hope. It takes experience to bring change.

Posted by: Dan | February 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

i just read the Barak Obama is the top recipient of wall street contributions. this is considered hush money so that he does not come out and directly criticize the corporations and the wealthy (like john edwards did). Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

explains why the men over a certain income are supporting hime

so who will Barak really be working for in the white house

you ---- me

and for all you worried about where hillary got her money

the clintons know money and if elected, we will have money too like we did when they were in the white house

and for all you monica fans - how many of your partners have never cheated on you

is your 9 year later anger misplaced by your own personal life

a corporate sponsored demo whose own wife may not support the party nominee

sweet

Posted by: lndlouis | February 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

It's all so evident; so doable.

The convention stands deadlocked.

With or without Bill, Hillary can never be elected; Barack lacks experience and to join HRC will cost him his soul. How to win and win big?

By acclimation Gore accepts the nomination. His choice for a running mate? Barack Obama.

Gore/Obama. GO with it.

Posted by: VWP | February 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

It all comes down to who is the best qualified and the best role model.

Obama used cocaine repeatedly.

What kind of meesage does that send our children?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Dems must hold Hillary acountable for the war in Iraq. We will continue to lose our moral authority on the world stage, and as a people we will sell our soul, if we do not insist that our representatives and leaders pay a price, when their vote causes the needless suffering of millions of people. HRC, for whatever reason, authorized a pre-emptive war in Iraq. It was as wrong then, as it is now. Hundreds of thousands are dead, and trillions of dollars have been spent.

The most important thing we can do as Americans is to demand that the leaders who got us into this mess because they misled us or failed to use their votes and voices to speak out, not be voted in as President of our nation. When it mattered most, Hillary failed her country. End of story. Vote O.


Posted by: Madeleine | February 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Bl,

Is your keyboard missing an "m?" FYI, "muslin" is a plain-woven cotton fabric; a "Muslim" is a follower of the Islamic faith.

Posted by: Guy B. Jones | February 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

bl is sick. see a vet.

Posted by: tomaaa | February 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The last time we elected a person with as little experience as Obama has as a governor or in the US Congress, was when Abraham Lincoln was elected. You'll remember that a civil war followed that election. Of course I am not saying the war was Lincoln's fault but the association has me wary ...

Posted by: GeneWells | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

rb -- If you don't accept the premise of the article linked to by TD (i.e., that Obama will be more electable because he has greater appeal to Republicans), perhaps you are more persuaded by polls?

Believe me, I know the polls have been all over the place in this primary season, and they sometimes have been wrong. However, it is still interesting to note that ALL of the most recent head-to-head polls (conducted by Rasmussen, "Time," CNN, Cook, ABC/"Wash Post", Fox News, and NPR) show Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary. In fact, all but the oldest poll (conducted by NPR) displayed on Real Clear Politics show Obama beating McCain, while five of the same polls show Hillary losing to McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

One of the key reasons I support Obama is that he appeals to independents (not just Republican leaning voters), and -- as a result -- he stands a far better chance of winning in November than Hillary (with her high negatives) does. Where independents were allowed to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries/caucuses over the last month or so, more have voted for Obama than have voted for McCain. Very few have voted for Hillary. The combination of "fired up" Democrats with Obama-leaning indenpendents (and, yes, a few Republicans) is a winning one for the Democrats in November. I like Hillary, but she simply does not have the coalition to win against McCain in November that Obama does. Vote Obama!

Posted by: Doug Ferguson | February 8, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

In response to Sean77's uneducated rant: Hillary has been working on child advocacy, human rights, regulatory, and healthcare issues since her studies/work at Yale Law School in the 1970s. She worked on many committees and completed international missions in the White House. Her speech to a U.N. world conference in 1995 is included in an anthology, "Speeches That Changed the World." She has served in the U.S. Senate for 8 years, including a spot on the Armed Services committee.

Posted by: Bruce | February 8, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who's so enthused about the democratic race should pause and consider who is really most likely to win in November. Yes, there would be some degree of race/gender hesitation, but the real problem is Clinton's negatives in so many minds. For example, I consider myself a moderate, perhaps leaning right on some issues. While Obama is a little too left for most of my views, I think it is time for a major change and I probably would vote for him. There is NO POSSIBLE way I will ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Similarly, I have a relative who is a life-long very liberal democrat - who has professed that they also will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton, but would love to vote for Obama. These kind of gut-reaction dislikes of Hillary Clinton are real and wide-spread. It has is related to many people's perceptions of who she is and how much can she be trusted. Whether or not such views are reasonable is another discussion - but don't doubt that such views exist in a sizable number of people.

Posted by: Olin Anderson | February 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain will use Obama's own words about the war to destroy him.

He will trap Obama into either looking like either a hypocrite or like a coward who would be unwilling to fight to protect the united states.

Its a "knight fork" there's no way for Obama to escape it, just like there's no way for Obama to escape his own words about his history of using cocaine repeatedly.

Everything Obama has done to appeal to cult-seekers, trend-seekers, and to the fringes of the Democratic party will come back to bite him.

His plan's don't work, he's changed positions too many times, and he has far too little to say.

Like Crepe-suzette, Obama's brilliance is a flash in the pan, and doesn't always pan out, but Republicans will sure enjoy eating him for breakfast.


Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone get the feeling that a lot of people on here have too much time on their hands. My favorite are the posts that try to take on the image of the sterotypical supporter of a candidate and then go on to say why they would never vote for that candidate (i.e. I am black and hate Obama; I am a woman and hate Hillary). Its pretty funny. Try this one: "I am from Venus and I am raising my kids to vote for Romney. Many Earthlings don't know it, but Romney is really from Mercury, our neighboring planet. Thus, we feel obligated to vote for him." I know, I know, this is stupid and a waste of your time. But so are most of the other posts. I wish the WP would screen comments better or require full names and addresses.

Posted by: Seriously | February 8, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes bl, you are right let's all vote for Mc Cain the hero!!!! This one is not backed by the Blacks, the junkies, the Illigal Latinos,but by the Jews. Everywhere he goes Lieberman is standing behind him smilling. Yes!!!! Let's vote for him!
This is the great white America, where we will feel safe!
And soon we will go to China begging for help and money because we will be sending all our money to Irak to support and protect Israel!

Posted by: Sam. | February 8, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I've been undecided between the Dems for a long time and I have finally decided who to vote for on Tuesday. While I have fond memories of the Clinton years, I have grown wary of this whole idea of dynastic politics which has alternated Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton?

While I still have apprehension over Sen. Obama's experience, I believe that true change needs to happen before this cycle of divisive politics is ended. Therefore, I will put my vote for Obama on Tuesday

Posted by: JMK | February 8, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Mary961---

You are certainly not doing your candidate any favours by your post.

Posted by: Brendan Connell | February 8, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Svreader--you are all over the internet (at least on the NY Times forum also) leaving message after message. Is someone paying you for your time? I would say you are abusing these forums.

Posted by: Brendan Connell | February 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Nope. What about you? Too much free time?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama in the White House for 16 years!"

Who in the world would want to become VP with Bill on the loose in the White House...and beyond.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 8, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Administrator: please remove BL's post -- it contains false statements, expresses religious and racial animosity, and is fully inappropriate.

Posted by: Suzanne | February 8, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I did check this web site, which is appalling about Obama's life. I don't think someone can make up a history as this:

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Posted by: Support | February 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Democrats and liberals are like moths to a flame. The 90,000 chuckleheads who voted for Nader in Florida got just what they hoped for - not. And now it is happening again on a much larger scale with Obama.

Posted by: Gene Wells | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

can someone from the washington post please clear the message board of racist statements? thanks.

Posted by: socrates | February 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Dear sv,

Bill Clinton lied to the American people, cheated on his wife repeatedly, humitiated her in public, pretended to be at war with Serbia by bombing empty buildings and roads out in the country side, and I'm beginning to think he's a closet racist.

My what a good role model he is for our children.

BTW, no one smokes marijuana without inhaling. Who does he think he's kidding?

Posted by: ripley723 | February 8, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

svreader-

What experience advantage does Hillary Clinton have over Obama?

Posted by: Jerry | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

good gracious,

Do you really think BL is a Clinton supporter? A right-wing nut job is more like it. Obama supporters have drunken so deeply of the kool-aid they can no longer tell fact from reality.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Various people have said that Obama is too liberal; implying that Hillary is not.

Health Care:
Obama: choice for adults; mandates for kids.
Hillary: mandates for everybody; possible wages garnished.

Islamic Bombers:
Obama: willing to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.
Hillary: wavering about offending the Pakistanis; implied Obama is naive on this issue.

Two biggest issues, one domestic, one foreign. Hasn't he taken less 'liberal' stances than she? What am I missing?

Posted by: Dwight | February 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

This poll is based on 500 voters. It tells us nothing. Hillary may have some baggage, but she is the best candidate to get the job done. Obama doesn't have enough clout or experience. And I bet we'll find some skeletons in his closet, as well--Exelon among other things.

Posted by: Arlington Voter | February 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Dwight - Be honest with yourself - if any other candidate had talked about going into Pakistan you would be outraged. But since it is the Kumbaya candidate you give him a pass.

Posted by: Gene Wells | February 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain can easily defeat HRC. LIke me most democrats are not going to vote if HRC is the candidate. It is time for power hungry Clintons to withdraw and save the democratic party.

Posted by: alfa2 | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"He will trap Obama into either looking like either a hypocrite or like a coward who would be unwilling to fight to protect the united states."

I agree with svreader here. McCain will not have to be near as sensitive with Obama as Hillary has had to be. McCain will not win many black votes against either Democratic candidate. He will attack, attack, and attack Obama. There will be no staying on the high ground in the general election. Hillary is much better suited to battle McCain.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

59yearoldfemale: based on your erroneous post I think you might be too senile to vote. Better stick to the crazy Right blogs where you will find more idiotic friends.

Posted by: maria | February 8, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I see that fear of skin color and ignorance is alive and well in America. Some of the comments in conversation are typical of people frozen with fear. I was firmly in Hillary Clintons camp until she admitted that she may garnish wages in order to make universal health care possible. I cannot support anyone forcing me to pay for something I might not want at the time.

The second thing that swayed me is this conversation and the racist comments. It's time for America to tear down the berlin wall that surrounds the white house. It will be a great day for America when that final barrior of limitation based on race is broken forever.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Hello? Is anybody listening?

Barack Hussein Obama is not a muslim. He is a Christian.

His father was not a muslim. He was an atheist.

I don't care when people attack someone based on facts. But I am bowled over by how many idiots can't even get their facts straight on this simple matter.

Posted by: Lisa | February 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Is it racist to say McCain won't have to be conscious of offending black voters? I don't think they are a big constituency for him.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

hdimig - Didn't you get the memo? All criticism of Obama or his electiability is racism.

Posted by: Gene Wells | February 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Wow.

Posted by: abc | February 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Does it annoy anyone else that Obama paraphrases Dr. King like 15-20 times per speech? Just wondering.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I actually don't mind the lies about Obama. They're so outrageous, they can't possibly be true, and they're clearly posted by mouth-breathers so stupid that I cannot believe they really even support Hillary.

Second, "Republicans only make up lies." No, dear, that would include the Clinton campaign, who tried to describe Obama as a Reaganite, evidently for failing to suggest Ronnie had hooves and a tail.

If all you can do is lie on your opponent, he must be pretty good. If you can't stand the truth on your own candidate, she must be pretty bad. And if you're reduced to playing the race card, you got nothin'. As Honest Abe (a Republican, quel horreur) once said, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time." The Clinton acolytes may fool enough people with enough lies to steal the nomination, but they can't win a nomination based on lies and leverage that into winning a general election. Flat out. Jimmy Carter tried that back in 80, how'd that turn out?

Posted by: RL | February 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is this: Hillary cannot get the independent voters that Obama can take from McCain. If we really want to find a democrat in office in 2009, Obama has to be the candidate. As he himself said, Obama knows he can get the votes Hillary has now, but Hillary will not get all the votes from the Obama supporters!!

Posted by: 4Liberty | February 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

>> who tried to describe Obama as a Reaganite

After someone took HRC's comments about LBJ and MLK and twisted them, refered to her as Senator Punjab, and encouraged Nevada Rebublicans to register as Democrats to vote against Hillary. Your candidate is not free from the slime.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was a young republican. Wolf in sheep's clothing? You bet. If it comes down to Hillary and McCain, any real liberal who knows the issues would have to vote for McCain, as he has a more liberal voting record. When you compare it the Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon was more liberal. If you want someone with some semblance of a true progressive to vote for in 2008, then you have to go with Barack Obama.

Posted by: AG | February 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

is hillary rhodam going to start running the "I'm a dirty hippy"-style ads that Barack Hussein is? All the GOP will have to do is run the old ads and say see, this is what they did to get nominated

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

It is very scary that this system allows anyone to vote. We have a presidential election coming up. This is something that is so important and will affect each and everyone of our lives in one way or another. Yet the only thing that some people are interested in is attacking the character of their candidate of choice's opponent. This is so elementary or high schoolish and it should not be included in a conversation as consequential as this. Are they aware that it only demonstrates that they do not do any in depth reading of each candidate's issues, because if they did, we wouldn't have to navigate through all this garbage!!!

Posted by: Mina | February 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I like voting for empty suits

Posted by: Go Go BHO | February 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

To anyone who thinks that Hillary can't beat McCain:

Hillary won New York, New Jersey, and California, the states that democratic candidate NEEDS to win in November to win the general election. Obama won in states that are typically vote Republican in the general elections, and will be difficult to wrest out of Republican hands. Obama is credited for bringing out the younger voters, but Hillary has also brought out new voters, the Latinos.

Hillary can challenge McCain in a debate, since she knows the details and nuances of issues better than Obama.

If the Democrats want to win in November, they should vote for Hillary.

Posted by: deb | February 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey,

Did anyone answer ModestProposal? I would like to know the details of his Alexandria event and can't find anything on his website yet???

Posted by: Mike | February 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Well hypocrisy kind of irks me. Obama always talks from way up high but is the first to start taking personal jabs like "my opponent has a problem with the truth" or bringing up the fact HRC was on the board of Walmart or questioning her judgment. I watch Hillary and I get a bunch of details on what she is going to do. I can at least believe she has studied the problem well and will probably do her best to fix it. Obama: I get nice words. Then there is the fact that Obama supporters respond to any criticism with such moral outrage. You would think Obama was a Republican the way he centers his campaign around personal character. Maybe he is a Reganite!

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Are we still relying on Polls after New Hampshire and California left the press with their pants down.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

look,


Obama couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag and he's going to take on insider Washington????


please....


the media is afraid to take on insider washington.


you live there and you're afraid to admit out loud that you can't trust the people in the whitehouse because you want to keep your clearance...

even though you can't trust the people in the whitehouse and the president by fraud not only inhaled but shot up sswallowed, [ I won't say what, but search on Jeff Gannon ], and is an admitted alcoholic

he couldn't get a clearance in Washington D.C. if his father wasn't knee deep in many pockets...


slime???? scum ??? somehow those words don't seem to even get close to what the bush families, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Libby, Abrams, Woolsey


and others are doing will do and have done...


Obama, will still have a smile on his face as Teddy and John Kerry walk out of the room and leave him alone with his new bosses...


that is the truth. I wouldn't tell the truth about who I was voting for either if I lived in


Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, Rosslyn, Reston, Herdon, Centerville, Chantilly, Oakton, Vienna, McLean, or Falls Church


I would just do it. So working for the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, NSA and other


AGENCIES could be for the people of the United States instead of this greasy, surly gang of


thieves.


take them down to the river and DUNK 'EM.


sue them into eternity.

Posted by: a judicious listener... | February 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This primary is making me sick of three things: 1) Superdelegates and their purely politically self-interested motives; 2) Polls; 3) and the race card.

Posted by: Susan9 | February 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

On the bright side, consider this - January 21, 2009-January 20, 2013 - it won't be Bush. But whoever it is, s/he will have to clean up Bush's mess.

I don't think any of the candidates have a clue.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | February 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

LOL at you naive Billary supporters. Independents such as myself will never ever vote for her. I strongly support Obama, but will easily choose McCain over Hillary. McCain and the GOP are salivating at the thought of running against a Clinton again.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow, this place is amazing. You can tell all the Republican hatemongers' posts because they're so poorly written and misspelled. I'm a Texas Dem who's thrilled to know that my state will be integral in getting a sane person (Obama) back in the White House.

Posted by: kg | February 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

No one will unite the Republicans to come out and vote against the Democrats more than Hillary Clinton. And Obama does not need her to unite the party because over 70% of voters said that they would be satisfied with either candidate as a second choice.

If anyone is truly interested in the facts, rather than just spouting off the myths that the press keeps spinning, consider this.

If Obama is elected President, he will take office with as much, or more, experience as an elected official than any other president in the past 30 years - more than Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush; the same as George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; and significantly more than Hillary Clinton. He will have had more years as elected official in Washington than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan did before they became President.

In the short time he has been in the U.S. Senate, he has sponsored or co-sponsored:

The Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2007, which reduces the influence of special interest groups.

The Government Transparency Act of 2006, so that the American public can see exactly what their politicians are up to and hold them accountable.

These are the kind of radical changes in the way our government operates that he speaks about now and will continue making when he is President. He will bring our government back to the American people, where it belongs.

Also, the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which will have a profound effect on our national security.

In 2002, in the middle of his campaign for a seat in the Senate, he spoke out loudly against invading Iraq even though it could have cost him the election. He said,

""I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

And he was right, even without knowing what we know now.

He is better qualified to handle the foreign affairs of this country than any of the remaining candidates and, given Senator Clinton's management of her campaign finances, he is probably better qualified to handle our economy as well.

Finally, Obama's ability to bring together so many people who have never before been involved in politics should not be dismissed as irrelevant. After all, we've got some tough times ahead of us trying to solve all the problems we're facing now. And people are more willing to make short term sacrifices for a leader who has their enthusiastic support.

Posted by: Rebecca | February 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Chicago Sun Times article challenges Obama's integrity...Obama and His Rezko Ties
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
Davis--the senior partner for the small law firm that Obama worked for--said he did not recall Obama working on any real estate transactions. That was the reason Obama went to work for the firm--to work on low income housing. And then Obama describes his work in his autobiography--housing for the poor. Which one is the truth-teller?

Posted by: SOS | February 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Clinton, '08

Clinton/Obama, '08

Either works for me!

Posted by: BlueDog | February 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

let's look at this poster:

anonniemous launches his "rove," based miss ile:

LOL at you naive Billary supporters.

a. Monster, the kind that eats ugliness, replies:

look, he just identified himself as a repulisve scammer...

that means he will try to link Hillary and Bush, say some garbage that the repulsive scammers have been saying for 16 years, until you believe it like the service men and women believed that IRAQ had attacked the United States when that was spin by Condosleezie, thecidkCHEENEY, george snarky bush and others soundbit it into your brain pans...

and he will claim to me an independant or a democrat....neo conartist at work...let's check in and see if I was right...


anonniemous continues:


Independents such as myself will never ever vote for her. I strongly support Obama, but will easily choose McCain over Hillary. McCain and the GOP are salivating at the thought of running against a Clinton again.

a. Monster, the kind that eats ugliness, replies:

I forgot this one, the repulsive scammers want to run against Hillary....that's why they want Obama for president....he won't know what hit him...


he'll still be picking October Surprises out of his rear end for 8 years after...


the repulsive scammers are scared to death of Hillary.


because payback is "your mother," anonnie mous...


.

Posted by: a. Monster | February 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

is that the repulsive scammers need to be held responsible for destroying the country....


how do you do that?


take it away from them....

conscript the contractors, make it a National Security Issue

along with the rest of the United States Economy.

bushCO and CRONYs are bankrupting the country outside of WASHINGTON, and if work at jobs that really matter...


you're lucky right now. Make AMERICA a safe and profitable place to live in....send a republican home,

and don't let an innocent be president.


...

. .

.

Posted by: what needs to happen | February 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Rebecca - you say Obama has lots of experience elected official - you are counting the Illinois Senate as big time experience - it is not.

Posted by: Gene Wells | February 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

rb and Doug, thanks for the thoughtful posts. I agree that Hillary's high negative rating is a problem -- it leaves her with fewer swing voters to attract. While I realize that 45% of the country (including many progressives) would never vote for her (or at least that's what they say -- but six months is a long time to get over one's disappointment), I have confidence in her ability to win over enough swing voters to win the election. I also suspect that Republicans want Democrats to nominate Obama, not because they think they can beat him, but because they'd rather lose to him. Still, I want to vote for the best remaining candidate, and being a pragmatic person, I consider electability to be an important qualification.

Posted by: TD | February 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters should call Obama supporters bluff.

They aren't Democrats, they're members of an Obama "cult of personality"

Anyone who is a Democrat should vote for Hillary.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

get your head on straight...


I have been posting here for over 4 years.


and I worked in Washington in the "Clinton Years,"

the nazi based repulsive scammer / CIA propagandist machine has been running non stop.


you all "think," there is something wrong with the Clintons and Hillary...

___________________________________________

you all have been convinced that Bill Clinton and Hillary are bad people when in fact everything in their lives points towards them caring about the people.


Bills big ideas were, college for everyone and national healthcare...

not invading IRAQ to steal SAUDI OIL, or colluding with the SAUDIS to blow up the WTC...


get a grip, and Larry Craig one of his biggest detractors about morality


regularly dances for his supper in public restrooms.....and then goes home to his wife


get real


.

Posted by: look | February 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I urge all Republicans to vote for Hillary in the VA open primary on the 12th since our nomination is decided. Our great state already has the distinguished privilege of electing the 1st black gov in US (most ashamed day in my life), let's not put another "black stain" on this great state by helping "it" get nominated.

Posted by: cs | February 8, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton, with 4000+ votes in the Illinois senate plus more than three years in the U.S. Senate. Clinton has been a U.S. Senator for exactly 4 years longer than Obama, with little to nothing to show for it. As for Hillary as VP, I wish Obama would say: "I will not have electoral relations with that woman .. Mrs. Clinton."

Posted by: illinoisdem | February 8, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

First, I encourage the Obama movement and supporters to not dwell of this poll. Obama personally discourages us from following the polls. Particularly, in this case, we want to win Virginia, therefore we must not rest on our laurels feeding into a poll that has us ahead. We are simply going commit to working hard for favorable results for the our next President of the United States - - Barack Obama. Second, no way, again this is Barack responding, do we want a Clinton/Obama ticket, maybe and most likely and hopefully not he would consider her for his running mate on a Obama/Clinton ticket.

Posted by: Dee | February 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

What possible purpose could your post serve except to drive votes away from Obama???

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

the washington post to find out who

cs is


and report him to the local magistrate for hate based activities.


be a friend to the United States of AMERICA,


send a republican home and NATIONALIZE BIG OIL....


they want to run the country for themselves????


let's run them for the benefit of the country.


IT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE....


we could even make staying home and telecommuting to work a


NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE TO SAVE ENGERY in our nations capitol...


.

Posted by: I urge | February 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Dee --

If Obama supporters follow your advice, for their own protection, Clinton supporters should immediately withdraw any support for Clinton/Obama.

Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination.

Every day people are waking up with a hangover and realizing that Obama is a political "one night stand"

With Obama, there is no "there there"

Its fun, but its not a long-term thing.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

@ svreader
You really need to shut up with the ridiculous propaganda. Hillary will lose a general election and you know it. Read any national poll and you will see McCain is ahead by at least 7+ points against her. Fools like you will cost the democrats the election.

Posted by: Independent | February 8, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the only one who can win the election.

With Obama its:

"Who should I vote for, the war hero or the coke-head"

Obama is a garenteed loser.

Obama is how you say "unelectable" in Kenyan.


Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing on Obama schedule on his website about his being in Alexandria on Sunday, where can I find details of this event?

Posted by: Dee | February 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the typos, here's the repost --

Hillary is the only one who can win the election.

With Obama it's going to be: "Who should I vote for, the war hero or the coke-head?"

Obama is a garenteed loser.

Obama is how you say "unelectable" in any language (not just Kenyan)

Obama supporters really need to cut back on the old MDMA. Not everybody loves you.

But we do!!!


Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't like the way the "Free Fall" ad focused on scaring Americans into voting for Hillary. "Fear Politics" make me uneasy about a candidate. That's why I'm glad Rudy Giulianni is out of the race.

Posted by: Tony | February 8, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The idiocy of HRC supporters on this board is amazing.

Posted by: Matt | February 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I feel like Hillary supporters do whatever they can to ignore the fact that Hillary has voted for the Iraq war several times. That is a shame to the democratic party because there is a lot of blood & money on that vote. Sure, it would be great to see a woman president because they have been oppressed in the past, but compared to African Americans, women have had it much better (not that race and gender should be a determining factor anyways... but unfortunately people usually identify themselves heavily along these lines). And lastly, as someone who studies writing & rhetoric, I notice how the Clinton strategists play the feminist card to the max (i.e. proclaiming to America in a somber mood that she had to loan her own campaign five million dollars). This persuasion tactic really stirred up the fact that men have had better financial opportunities in the past and to no surprise it worked because her campaign raised six million dollars in the next two days after that. Oh and- I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November.

Posted by: pg6959 | February 8, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton, with 4000+ votes in the Illinois senate plus more than three years in the U.S. Senate."

Dude, have you ever met your state senator? That experience does not really count for much. Sorry.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

To all Hillary Haters, Please tell me why you hate Hillary. Your reasoning is more likely fed by neocons and heard already for the past 10 years. Please tell me something new. To Obama haters, tell me why he can't be elected as president. You'll get one vote for the merits of the reply not how you give me Hope or not how you hate Hillary.

Thanks!

Posted by: Young Undecided Democrat | February 8, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"The idiocy of HRC supporters on this board is amazing."

Obama supporters are so delusional they can't tell a pro-HRC post from a right-wing nut job post. Here is a hint: HRC posters are at least semi-coherent and don't have near as many misspellings.

Posted by: hdimig | February 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Deb: You said it well:
* * * * *
To anyone who thinks that Hillary can't beat McCain:

Hillary won New York, New Jersey, and California, the states that democratic candidate NEEDS to win in November to win the general election. Obama won in states that are typically vote Republican in the general elections, and will be difficult to
wrest out of Republican hands. Obama is credited for bringing out the younger voters, but Hillary has also brought out new voters, the Latinos.

Hillary can challenge McCain in a debate, since she knows the details and nuances of issues better than Obama.

If the Democrats want to win in November, they should vote for Hillary.

Posted by: deb | February 8, 2008 04:52 P* * * * * * * *

It is also going to be almost impossible for McCain to win in the General Election no matter who we nominate. Why?

Because McCain says we will be in Iraq for a hundred years and wants to reinstitute the draft.

The people in America are not going to let that happen.

Hillary is the one who will take a reasoned, steady course to work on our problems. Hillary will bring the change and unity we need.

By the way, in case you didn't know:

Obama got the Change mantra from Bill Clinton when he ran. I saw Bill Clinton saying that - we need change - a bridge to the 21st century.

Obama got the title for his book, "Audacity of Hope," from a sermon his pastor Wright gave.

Obama got the "Yes, We Can," chant from the united farm workers.

Obama got some of his campaign money from Rezko, the crook that is now indicted and picked up by the FBI recently and set for trial Feb. 15th, on trial for "influence peddling."

Obama had written letters on his state senate letterhead to city and state officials that netted fourteen million dollars paid to Obama out of taxpayer monies.

Obama also sat in on business meetings with Rezko to influence potential investors.

Many articles, over 100, have been written in Chicago newspapers about Rezko and his back room shady deals. Rezko and Obama have been joined at the hip for over 17 years now.

Do you think McCain, who is ruthless, will let Obama slide on all those facts? They are facts, not rumors.

The Obama's were married in a church that Wright pastors, and he has radical views and one report says their church is pro-black and anti-Israel.

People better be careful what we wish for - If you defeat Hillary you will only have two choices left - A third term for Bush, with Bush-like McCain, or an unvetted, unknown quantity, roll of the dice Obama.

Obama's rhetoric may inspire some people, but it is creepy to me. It is creepy to see people set aside all reason for someone like Obama that has no credentials to help him in a presidency, or experience, or compassion.

Barack and Michelle Obama do not show compassion, ever. They show a pompous, self-serving attitude as if they deserve this presidency.

(Obama even dictates how the media reports things that happen. Obama told the media not to report the votes in Florida or to make a big deal about her getting almost two million votes down there.)

They don't deserve it, and I hope to God they don't succeed. It will be the saddest chapter in American history if they do. gw.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

sveader: I liked your description of Obama, a "one night stand," and I like to call him a "flash in the pan," - I don't dare call him Barack Hussein Obama, or I catch a lot of flack.

But I didn't name him that, his mother did. I wonder why she did? gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

iowatreasures --

Win, lose, or draw, everyone on this board is lucky to have someone who makes as thoughtful posts as your do.

Obama supporters creep me out too. They remind me of moonies, and of a folk song I heard years ago called "Jesus is healther than Heroin" that talked about "the same glazed look in your eyes"

Every Obama supporter I've met has that look.

It IS Creepy.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The Truth about Hillary Clinton
-------------------------------------
- has refused to disclose tax returns until after the nomination yet touts campaign transparency
- has refused to disclose documents outlining her activity as first lady even though she counts her 8 years in the white house as part of her "35 years of experience"
- has raised more money from special interest groups than any candidate (including republicans) yet says she will somehow revamp the role special interest groups play in washington
- voted for the iraq war and then said she would pull out of the war and blames bush.
- she voted for a 2001 bankruptcy bill that hurt working class people and yet said in a debate she hoped "it wouldn't pass". A classic example of special interest paybacks
- she claims members of the National Guard and military Reserve didn't have health insurance until she and a GOP colleague took action. In fact, active-duty Guard and Reserve troops already were covered by federal insurance, and four out of five non-active-duty guardsmen and reservists already were covered by their civilian employers or other sources
- her brother, Hugh Rodham, pocketed $400,000 (which was returned) from people who later received pardons from your husband. At the time, you claimed that you had not discussed those pardons with your brother or your husband beforehand. Is that true?
- during the Clinton Administration, Craig Livingstone, the Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, improperly looked through the FBI files of hundreds of your political enemies. There are allegations that you got Livingstone hired, that he went through those files on your orders, and that you also read some of those files. Are any of those allegations true?

My question for Hillary supporters...how long can you blame conservative conspiracies for Clinton unethical behavior?

McCain and Obama are much better candidates....seek the truth.


Posted by: Rev | February 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching Obama every since he first came to Iowa.

The first thing I noticed was that he posted contributions of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000). It made the media swoon.

Then when somebody brought up the fact that he had an awful lot of contributors, he finally admitted they weren't all contributors, they were purchases of bumper stickers, etc.

Now, I don't know if people are regulated when they purchase, as much as they are when they contribute, but I immediately asked myself, "Just who did buy all those bumper stickers."

Now that I am learning about the rezko/obama 17 year friendship/association and how much Obama did to put millions of dollars in Rezko's hands because of letters he wrote on behalf of Rezko when he was an Illinois State Senator, I also wonder if his association with Rezko, which was "substantial" according to John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, is what he calls "working on community organizing.)

I can list dozens of reasons why I don't trust Obama, but if the people vote for him instead of Hillary, McCain will do that job for me - since the media won't. The media knows all about the Obama/Rezko relationship, but they didn't even call him on it when he lied during a recent debate and said he barely knew Rezko.

Obama can get away with this deception for awhile - but it will catch up to him sooner or later in the next few months, I just hope it isn't after he skews this primary election the way he wants to.

Now, he is saying he should get all the super delegate votes because he has won more states. Obama is creepy and his wife is rude and callous. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 8, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Rev,

I saw that post several times already. Do you have any links?

Posted by: YUD | February 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Author of the first comment -- I am sorry but it was just so stupid. !

Posted by: John | February 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Author of the third comment BL -- I am sorry but it was just so stupid. !

Posted by: John | February 8, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Kinda cool how some of these folks post long stuff that nobody has time to read.
Thanks for the heads up on the latest poll. Now Hillary can jet into VA, shed a few tears and squeek by with a win.
She's a woman, but there will never be a more establishment candidate than HC. Vote Barack Obama. -- Former Staunton resident, now in Alabama.

Posted by: Cliffs | February 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

It is time for Hillary to give it up and let the party unify around Barack Obama and begin the fight against McCain.

Posted by: zb95 | February 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

The national languages of Kenya are Swahili and English; there is no such language as "Kenyan." And in Swahili, "Barack" means "one who is blessed by God." It has Semitic roots, and is dervied from the Hebrew word "Baruch" which means "blessed." (Just in case you weren't sure, Hebrew is a Jewish language).

Based on your posts, I am certain you will find a way to denigrate my post while at the same time pushing your pro-Clinton perspective. In my opinion, you are exactly the type of ignorant supporter Hillary does NOT need if she intends to clinch the nomination. So do us all a favor and go read a book - you could use some work on your English (that's the language we speak here in America).

Posted by: MBG | February 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

MGB --

I won't denegrate your posts, even though you made such a lame attempt to denegrate mine.

Actually I like Obama quite a bit.

I might even buy a house or a used BMW from him.

But he doesn't have the experience to be president, he's no well near as well prepared as Hillary is.

The most important thing, though, is that his plans are all "muddled"

His health plan doesn't work at all.

If I was grading it, I'd give it an "F"

That's the real problem with Obama. Once you get past his surface appeal there isn't anything there.

Hillary is going to win the nomination and the election.

We were willing to invite Obama along to be on the ticket.

The chances of that are fading hourly.

Clinton supporters will not accept the kind of slights, snubs, insults and downright lies that Obama supporters post.

If Obama wants any chance to be on the ticket he's got to start attacking Republicans, not Democrats!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Why do some many people hate the ida of another Clinton in the White House. Here is what I remember from Bill's tenure. Good economy (longest economic expansion in modern history), low inflation, increased social programs, shrinking deficit, strong dollar, launch of the internet as we know it, less crime, better quality of life. As for people attacking Hillary's credentials when it comes to national security and defense, she did serve time if I recall in some defense committee and is a hell of a lot more experienced than Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Attention all Democrats: Obama can defeat McCain. Hillary cannot !! Latest polls cleary show this:

Rasmussen:
McCain 42, Obama 47, Obama + 5
McCain 46, Clinton 43, McCain + 3

Time:
McCain 41, Obama 48, Obama +7
McCain 46, Clinton 46, Tie

Posted by: zb95 | February 8, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

know that the repulsive scammers have successfully dumbed down the electorate to be susceptible to sound bite ing them...


what you need to know AMERICA,

is that the repulsive scammers need to be held responsible for destroying these United States of AMERICA....


how do you do that?


take it away from them....


conscript the war profiteers/contractors, make it a National Security Issue...nationalize WAR PROFITEERING, and make it impossible to lead the country into a fraudulent conflict designed to make some fake TEXANs reiche...


they didn't even move there until the texans killed JFK...


along with the rest of the United States Economy.


bushCO and CRONYs are bankrupting the country outside of WASHINGTON, and if work at jobs that really matter...


you're lucky right now. Make AMERICA a safe and profitable place to live in....send a republican home,


and don't let an innocent be president.


...

. .

.

Posted by: the idiocy of idiots on these boards let's me | February 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

god you obama supports are so naive. Obama: we love change, we love being americans, everybody loves eveybody, etc etc.
no concrete proposals, no specific plans or platforms, just we want change and although we have no experience we will change Washington. Good luck, you are going to change things that have been going on for a hundred years yeah good luck! oh to be so young and naive

Clinton knows how to get things done and will do it. But she is not going to win because of this garbage about change.


Come and talk to me this time next year when things are a disaster, we will be in an recession and Mr. Change will have no idea how to deal with it.


Posted by: kathy | February 8, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

All I'm saying is that your posts are becoming off-putting and ignorant. And you made yourself such an easy target with the "Kenyan" posts - I just couldn't resist being a smartass.

Posted by: MBG | February 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry BL but I made a comment before I read all the comments, I would like to say that I made a wrong comment by caling it stupid, it was rather ... super stupid, so next time please at least ask someone before you humiliate yourself.

Posted by: John | February 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I wonder who they polled for Bill Clinton's 70 percent approval rating. The interns?

Posted by: Maria | February 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I will address this unprecedented post by Monica's roommate....who does seek whitehouse approval regularly...nowdays in the parking lot..

Maria oozled:

I wonder who they polled for Bill Clinton's 70 percent approval rating. The interns?


a. Monster replies:


well Maria, you'll be happy to know that they polled 100 people in some city for "the family feud" game show to find out who "the common people," would most like to have the autograph of and it was none other than


BILL CLINTON.


do you want to hear about what ALAN GREENSPAN SAID ABOUT HIM ???


or do you want to just ooozle / extrude some more slime ???


.

Posted by: actually | February 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

MARVIN BUSH EMPLOYEE'S MYSTERIOUS DEATH - Connections to 9/11?

Washington Post Sits on Story for a Week

by Wayne Madsen


October 10 , 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) -- WASHINGTON, At around 9 PM on September 29, Fairfax County, Virginia police responded to a 911 call describing an accident. However, they soon discovered they were not dealing with a routine emergency but the mysterious death of an employee of the 47-year old brother of President George W. Bush, venture capitalist Marvin Bush. Sixty-two year old Bertha Champagne, described as a long time "baby sitter" for Marvin and Margaret Bush's two children, son Walker, 13, and daughter Marshall, 17, was found crushed to death by her own vehicle in a driveway in front of the Bush family home in the Alexandria section of Fairfax County. Champagne reportedly lived at the Bush family home.

Champagne had left the residence to retrieve something from her car, which police say had somehow been left in gear. According to the police report, the car rolled forward and pinned the woman between it and a small building next to the driveway (possibly a checkpoint built by the Secret Service when Marvin's father, George H. W. Bush, was president). The car crossed Edgehill Drive, a small street in front of the Bush compound. The vehicle then crossed a busy two-lane street, Fort Hunt Road, finally coming to rest in a wooded area across the street that adjoins the prestigious Belle Haven Country Club. No explanations have been offered as to why the vehicle did not move until Champagne was in a position to be crushed.


........

According to two articles in the Prince George's Journal (Maryland) written by Margie Burns, from 1993 to 2000, Bush served on the board of Securacom (since renamed Stratesec). The chairman of the board of Stratesec is Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of Marvin and George W. Bush. Securacom had contracts to provide security for Dulles International Airport (the airport from which American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, originated) and the World Trade Center in New York. Securacom's backers include a number of Kuwaitis through a company called KuwAm Corp (Kuwaiti-American Corp.). Stratesec also has Saudi investors. Walker also serves as a managing director of KuwAm, which maintains offices within the Watergate complex along with Riggs Bank, on whose board Bush's uncle, Jonathan Bush, sits. Saudi Princess Haifa al Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar, used a Riggs account to funnel money to Omar al Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, two Saudi students in California associated with two of the 911 hijackers.

Until November 2002, Bush served on the board of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. (formerly Houston Casualty Company), a re-insurer for the World Trade Center. Bush still serves as an adviser to the firm. Walker serves as chief executive officer of Aviation General, an aircraft company backed by KuwAm. Aviation General, formerly Commander Aircraft, brokered the sale of airplanes to the National Civil Aviation Training Organization (NCATO), located in Giza, Egypt, the hometown of lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. NCATO is the only civilian pilot training school in Egypt. NCATO has a training agreement with Embry-Riddle University in Daytona Beach, Florida, the flight school that was investigated by the FBI for possibly training at least one of the 911 hijackers.


Posted by: gosh what's this | February 8, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

"Attention all Democrats: Obama can defeat McCain. Hillary cannot !! Latest polls cleary show this:

Rasmussen:
McCain 42, Obama 47, Obama + 5
McCain 46, Clinton 43, McCain + 3

Time:
McCain 41, Obama 48, Obama +7
McCain 46, Clinton 46, Tie"

I think this same type of poll had John Kerry up like 20 points on GWB in 2004. The poll is meaningless. HRC can easily close that gap with a good debate or two. McCain seems to rely on a tele-prompter alot.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

With McCain having wrapped up the GOP nomination there could be considerable crossover of Republicans Tuesday to cast spoiler votes in the Democratic Party. I plan to cross over and vote for Hillary with an eye to who's easier to beat in the fall.

Posted by: Bill Harrison | February 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Bill Harrison: That's a bold and risky tactic that I doubt many Repubs will try. In fact, I doubt you are really a Republican at all. I suspect you are a Hilary supporter trying to drum up some cheap votes for your candidate. Pathetic.

Posted by: Bob, DC | February 8, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

JT - Maybe if you pursued an education you'd realize you have at least 4 grammatical errors and at least 2 rhetorical ones. Get an education so your ignorance won't be so shown to the world. You don't know how to speak your mind in an articulate manner and you don't know the facts. Sorry for you, Buddy.

Obama is the bets thing that happened to the republicans. As soon as the primaries are over, whites will realize they have no choice butt to vote for Mccain.

Posted by: JT | February 8, 2008 11:30 AM

Posted by: redart | February 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The thought that Barak Obama, who refuses to control the misogeny of his own supporters, could end up as President of the United States instead of Hillary Clinton who has worked for it all her life is beyond disturbing to me.
I am sick and tired of hearing the Clintons disparaged and do not understand why Obama can't manage to control his supporters.

Posted by: bghgh | February 8, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

MBG "So do us all a favor and go read a book - you could use some work on your English (that's the language we speak here in America).
"

Not for long if either of these 2 candidates are elected!!!!!

Posted by: nick | February 8, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

There is no scenario where Obama will be the next president. He and his supporters have so thoroughly alienated most of Hillary's supporters that even if he wins the nomination, he's toast.

In 2004 a UNITED Democratic party could not defeat the biggest idiot president of our lifetime.

This year, if Obama gets the nomination, he will be lucky if half of Hillary's supporters don't stay home. People don't vote for candidates that they don't like.

What's worse, he is probably stupid enough to think that he doesn't need them because he actually believes that republicans will vote for a liberal black man for president. After all, 10 democrats in Idaho voted him last Tuesday.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama is the worse thing that has happened to the Democratic party since Carter. He will not win this year and after he loses he will leave this party in shambles.

Pretty good work in four months especially from a uniter.

Posted by: Larry | February 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

If Billary is elected then we can look forward to the two families ruling like rotating monarchs for generations to come. After the Queen of Sleaze we could have Queen Laura, King Jeb, and Queen Chelsea, and we needn't stop there.

Posted by: HomeRun | February 8, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Larry: Fret not. Barack will select Hillary as VP and get most of her supporters to support the ticket and easliy beat John McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

LET's LOOK AT THIS SELF IDENTIFYING POSTER:

Karl Rove posted:

If Billary is elected then we can look forward to the two families ruling like rotating monarchs for generations to come.


a. Monster who can help you to realize your dreams of being shacked up with Big Sue at and getting a daily dose of inuenndo, Karl:

"Billary," is an invention of repulsive scammer basis....O bama people don't have such low standards...unless incited by repulsive scammers...it implies two things Hill Billy and Hillary....sort of a two slimes for the price of one...


Karl con tinues:
After the Queen of Sleaze we could have Queen Laura, King Jeb, and Queen Chelsea, and we needn't stop there.


a. Monster replies:

hmmmmmmmmmmm...........

now the bushes have been intimately involved with politics for over 100 years...including the formation of the CIA...trade with China through George H.W. Bushes older Brother occured before WWII I think...


so "the intention," is to link Hillary with George W. Bush, even though there is no connection...

look up "appeal to emotion," you'll find "false linking,"


these people are trained by NAZI PROPAGANDISTS recruited from Germany after WWII....GOEBBELS was the nazi that was so suckcessfull at slander...

SEARCH on Republicans, NAZI, Bush


it's a verifiable fact...


thanks for showing up Karl, hop eyou do time, and big sue find syouendo


...

Posted by: it's interesting isn't it? | February 8, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

this is the "old dayz,"

that don't matter to Obama, even though it is nowadays in INSIDER WASHINGTON...

how you going to fix something you can't admit exists...

sing a Bill Holiday song about, "Strange Fruit?"

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

...Like Nixon, George Bush was deeply involved with supporting the Nazis in the Republican's closet. In fact, support for the Nazis was a Bush family tradition which goes back more than six decades and, once again, to Allen Dulles.

Loftus and Aarons write: "The real story of George Bush starts well before he launched his own career. It goes back to the 1920s, when the Dulles brothers and the other pirates of Wall Street were making their deals with the Nazis. . . ."

THE BUSH-DULLES-NAZI CONNECTION

"George Bush's problems were inherited from his namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert 'Bert' Walker, a native of St. Louis, who founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900. Later the company shifted from St. Louis to the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street. . . .

"Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler's infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well.

"Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles's firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

"Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany. According to 'The Splendid Blond Beast,' Christopher Simpson's seminal history of the politics of genocide and profit, Brown Brothers, Harriman was another bank that specialized in investments in Germany. The key figure was Averill Harriman, a dominating figure in the American establishment. . . .

"The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company. The link between Harriman & Company's American investors and Thyssen started in the 1920s, through the Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. 'Bert' Walker was Union Banking's president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman's company at 39 Broadway in New York.

"In 1926 Bert Walker did a favor for his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush. It was the sort of favor families do to help their children make a start in life, but Prescott came to regret it bitterly. Walker made Prescott vice president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker's specialty was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler's political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed. According to our sources, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine. . . .

Posted by: you see... | February 8, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

money laundering ???


savings and loan failure, Keating 5.


money laundering Colombian cocaine money, money laundering Afghanistan HEROIN money,


hmmmmmmmmmmm......


money laundering WTC 9/11 money....


SEARCH on Michael Chertoff, Green Quest...


or don't because it's the


"old days,"


it's just Barack that Michael Chertoff is head of


Department of Homeland Security,


and the "Whitewater Prosecutor," serendipity


or collusion????


grow up little Barack.


.today is built of yesterdays.


you don't know the trajectories,


you'e worthless.


.

Posted by: hmmmmmmmmmmm.......... | February 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Why aren't we waterboarding Chris and bl? Hey, it's legal. Might even be fun!

Posted by: tom | February 8, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton says that she will not release her tax returns until she is the Democratic nominee--if that actually happens.

Why does she want to withhold such information from her fellow Democrats?

It seems pretty risky for the Democratic Party to nominate someone who will not level with it.

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | February 8, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

could smear Barack Obama all over the pages of this newpaper if he showed up...


tonight.


He doesn't have the insights he needs to be president of George Mason University...


much less the United States of America,


or UVA...

Posted by: I | February 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Barack OBAMA has had more legislative experience than Mrs. Clinton.
His campaign style doesn't brag, distort, or smear.
That's part of the CHANGE process - his website would point you to his achievements.

OBAMA brings to the ticket a double benefit:
Inspirational - engaging millions of otherwise uninterested folk in embracing the Democratic party.
Practical - 11 years of legislative experience.


Posted by: OBAMA )* | February 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

you want to compete,

and yet, you ignore the truth...


you can't compete w/o knowledge but you rush ahead and say...character is everything...

yes, that is why reich people hire people "with character," because they are too dumb to cheat them...


but the rich people don't have this same character, they have ruthlessness...


but the rabbits don't allow ruthlessness in their camp...


that is why there is so much Hassenpfeffer at bush family gatherings....and they will still be there while the whitehouse is occupied...


halliburton, blackwater, kbr, carlyle group...

they won't magically go away, neither will the bush appointees or the Petroleum Institute or AEI/PNAC/JINSA/AIPAC


what are those things ????


rabbits don't need to know.


that's why turtles win....


and ants kick grasshopper behind....


"when you can snatch the coin from my hand, and walk on the rice paper without leaving a trace.....

then you will be ready grasshopper.....until then."


.study

Posted by: hello little rabbits... | February 8, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

on little rabbits be brave


challenge the wolves with potatoes in your endos...


.!!!!


.

Posted by: hop | February 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA'S TIME FOR RECONCILIATION HAS COME:

Here's a place to start:

cslang.blogspot.com

PASS IT ON

Posted by: charlessamuellang | February 8, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused because there is a lot of media coverage about how Obama has the ability to unite people. What people has he managed to unite?

From my very limited perspective and based on the demographics, Obama gets young voters, black voters, and middle class wealthier voters. How is that "uniting people?" What about the women and the Latinos and the Asian Americans, and the older Americans?

It just seems to be a media fraud that just gets perpetuated.

I'm a under 30 something who is old enough to remember when Bush II ran in 2000 with the slogan "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

It sounds a little too familiar to me.

Posted by: dpc | February 8, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

hillary gets crushed this fall, and obama does not. look at the polls

Posted by: raise the barack | February 8, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Do you really want to cite the polls after the past few weeks? The pollsters have certainly ended up with egg on their face over and over again. Perhaps it would be smarter to ignore the polling data and wait until we get the actual results from the voters.

Posted by: jes | February 8, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Some of the posters on here are mind-numbingly ignorant bigots who apparently feel the need to reduce this primary contest to race-based warfare. News flash; I am WHITE AND ALONG WITH MY WHITE FAMILY I SUPPORT BARAK OBAMA. As far as I am concerned, race does not enter the equation.

Get over yourselves; this is not Selma Alabama during the 1960s, this is the multicultural America of the 21st century.

Posted by: David Lanier | February 8, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

am a white man,


and by saying that, I am showing you what a rascist bigot I am.

everyone's mitochondria sayz we're all from AFRICA anyway...

it's a moot point.

notice I know how to spell moot.

it's the first time I have seen it spelled right today.

sometimes I wonder if it's a cockney version of mote.

I once read beowulf in middle english, chaucer is boring when you're 8.

.

Posted by: I | February 8, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris If there is anybody who thanks like Osama that person is you and i will crown you right now as Chris Osama untie the Knot in your brain.

Posted by: Joe | February 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

In response to Hinn:

I think it probably would have been a good idea to read the entire article before posting it here, under the headline:

Even Gen-X youngsters are figuring Obama out now...

Joel Stein got Omabaphilia (LA Times)

If you had continue to READ the article like most intelligent people you would have realized that he was SUPPORTING Obama.

"There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor.

All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen victim."

...

Thing is, I've watched too many movies and read too many novels; I can't root against a person who believes he can change the world. The best we Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing ourselves. And I do believe that we can resist making more "We Are the World"-type videos. We can resist crying jags. We can resist, in every dinner argument and every e-mail, the word "inspiration." Yes, we can.

This guy is just mocking in a nice way the enthusiam that Obama generates that results in sometimes goofy behaviour. The author describes himself as an "Obamaphile".

I am one myself.

Obama in '08!!!!!


Posted by: sophia | February 8, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the nominee, I'm voting McCain. There is no way I'm going to risk putting this country into the hands of a young, inexperience man. Give him another ten years, maybe.

Posted by: Horatio | February 8, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

it's truly amazing me to me how many times I see race referred to when talking about Obama - the Clintons strategy to marginalize African Americans and make Barack the "black" candidate seems to have resonated with some of the people here...that is reason enough for me to not vote for Clinton, because it reminds me of how they are willing to do anything and everything to win this presidency - they act as if Hillary is entitled to this, like Obama has somehow stolen it from her....one of Clinton's top Latino aides said in an interview that "Latinos will never vote for a Black candidate"...Hillary doesnt care if she alienates African Americans (a loyal base of the Democratic party) as long as she can get the Latino vote and win..I agree with one of the previous bloggers...no more Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush...Obama is cited as a uniter because that is what he demonstrated in Illinois in the state legislature their - he brought both parties together on many issues...and as for his not taking a stand, a national political magazine ranked Obama as the "most liberal" candidate...you can have your own opinion about his being liberal, but that's regardless, because it means he must be making stands to be titled that...and please people who are spreading nasty rumors that Obama is secretly Muslim, etc...check your facts before your rhetoric of hate..or at least turn off fox news and make well informed statements...its people such as these that help me to understand how GWB has been president for the past 7 years - an ignorant constituency..

Posted by: givepeaceachance | February 8, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

i am a blk female. i am for john mccain. yes i agree with other readers that the media worries me when it does not equally cover negatives about both candidates. barrack (BHO-barrack hussein obama), has been given a complete pass on negatives. the media has bashed hillary so badly, it has americans believing she is the coming of the devil. people please see what is going on. the media killed john edwards as a viable candidate by barely covering him. the media early on made the primaries a two person race, barrack and hillary. then the media, talk and tv, decided to slowly cut into hillary like a sharp knife. people don't even know they have been brainwashed into believing hillary is from hell and barrack is from heaven. i lesson to blacks voting for him, not on substance but the fact that he is a person of color. whites voting because they bought into the belief of change. did anyone watch barrack's speech on 2-5-08, he is running for the presidency of the u.s. he was talking about "our time has come". who's time has come? then he said, "this movement". what movement? running for the presidency is not a movement. it is to represent all people. this primary is not a civil rights movement. please all of america, particularly blacks who are voting with prejudice or racism, vote for the issues the candidates are talking about. not the delivery. this is not a concert; this is not virutal voting, this is not a church sermon. this is reality-one vote, one chance to elect the best person to protect us, to lead us, all 300 million plus. god bless america. proud to be an AMERICAN.

Posted by: lavern | February 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I completely agree with lavern regarding the bias among pundits. The pundits have been incredibly biased against Clinton. Stop with the sexism already!

Posted by: Drew | February 9, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

I support Obama for president in 2016, after he has had a chance to work in the Senate and learn what the issues really are.
I remember all the mistakes made by JFK even with 16 years in Congress -- the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember Jimmy Carter's failed attempts to free our hostages from Iran and his failed attempts to get Americans to conserve energy and I remember Clinton's failure to get Lanny Guenier and other outstanding women appointed to his cabinet. And all of these Presidents had more experience that Barak Obama has.
On the job training works, for the stout of heart, which I believe Obama is, but the country pays a heavy price for the President's learning curve. We would be much better off if Americans would elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency now and Barak Obama in 2016. He can get on the job training as he waits to run again.
That would be good for all concerned.

Posted by: Southern Girl | February 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

It really bothers me that the public and pundits just accept Obama's assertions at face value. Here are nine reasons I am voting for Clinton:
) Obama voted against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

2) One of Obama's stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states." However, Obama also declared, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007

3) "While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

3) Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, rather than casting a yes or no vote, an option in the state Legislature. Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The NY Times found a mixed record: "Sometimes the 'present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. But in at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."FactCheck.org

4) ""In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric." -Boston globe. EX: Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. FactCheck.org Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year.-factchecker.org

5) Clinton charged that Obama's position has shifted on health care, from favoring a single-payer, universal system when he was a Senate candidate to the plan he favors now, which has no requirement. Obama denied that he had ever said he would work to get a single-payer plan, saying, "I never said that we should try to get single-payer. I said that if I were starting from scratch, I would probably go with a single-payer system."
But Obama's denial doesn't hold up. In a speech in June 2003, Obama said: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the US cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see."

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

6) Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are.
It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently.
It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen-- who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2008 campaign ad, "Interest" Jan 3, 2008

7) The best available information says that Obama's healthcare plan would leave between 8.5 million uninsured, up to 18 million people uninsured if Obama has no individual mandates.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Nov 15, 2007

8) On the 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to "repeal the Patriot Act" or replace it with a "new, carefully crafted proposal." When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act's reauthorization. Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008

9) Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda, saying, "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan's President Pervez] Musharraf."
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.

Obama (Aug. 1):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 7, 2007

Posted by: Drew | February 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama emits a "reality distortion field" that is truly remarkable.

Scientists will study it for years to come.

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that we should all be Independent. I refuse to vote the straight Republican OR the straight Democratic ticket just because of party affiliation. It's my duty to vote for the best candidate for the NATION -- not just my narrow self-interests or the interests of a particular party.

So, I don't think I'm wrong to say that if Hillary is not the Democratic Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party, that I will be voting for the Republican alternative -- John McCain. I'm looking for the best qualified individual for the good of the nation.

A few years ago I would have laughed at the thought of voting for Hillary. Now, although Obama has mass appeal and charisma, he is not the informed or wiser candidate. I have to say that I am impressed with just how knowledgeable Hillary Clinton is on every subject discussed in the debates.

I'm taking away the glitz, glamor and emotion out of the decision and voting for the best qualified PERSON in the general election -- Hillary if she's there and McCain if she's not.

Thanks for your consideration . . .

Posted by: TrulyIndependent | February 9, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Holy moly, many Hillary Clinton supporters are racists.

Posted by: Shocked! | February 9, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

I support Obama for president in 2016, after he has had a chance to work in the Senate and learn what the issues really are. I remember all the mistakes made by JFK even with 16 years in Congress -- the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember Jimmy Carter's failed attempts to free our ... blah blah blah ... Americans would elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency now and Barak Obama in 2016. He can get on the job training as he waits to run again.
------------------------
So what are you saying, that a US president must spend a lot of time in the Senate? WTF? Most presidents were not Senators. This argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by: Shocked! | February 9, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I've been a life long democrat voter and have never felt compelled to step over the other side. 2008 represents a once in lifetime opportunity where the democrats actually have the opportunity to elect their first transformational leader since FDR and reverse the tide of the Republican's more recent transformational one. Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately it looks like our party is in danger perpetuating a 30 year 2-family monarch. Somehow promoting the "vindication" of the Clintons over the Bushes is more pressing than opportunity to unite our country. Hillary never references her "experience" with building coalitions to overcome big problems like BO or even John McCain. Funny, the ability to work with others instead of hunker down in her self righteous ways probably would have aided HC's efforts to gain universal healthcare in 94. But alas she's not that type of candidate. Kinda sounds GW doesn't it?Compound that with her bad judgement, and you've 4-8 more years of the same ol polarizing scandalous "leadership" that has tarnished America since 1992. Now let's talk about the economy, and by the way Hillary why'd you support Bush's bankruptcy bill in 2001? Got something good going with the credit card and health insurance companies? I am touched by your endorsement of interest rate freezes for the mortgage market. Oops... Japan already tried that in the early 90's and look at what it did for its economy and real estate market. Guess that's why former fed chief Paul Volcker endorsed Barack. As a tough minded technocrat he probably appreciates an individual who is willing to consider all solutions instead hunkering down on what is palatable to the lunch pale democrat. Finally I have to say from the bottom of my heart that America is going to "LOVE" a candidate that was for the war before she was for it, but now she's against it. Wow. Brilliant. That's really going to make awesome inroads with the folks in the red states, Florida, Ohio, etc. who have paved the way for the last 2 Bush victories. Hey rabid Hillary supporters, and otherwise cynical dems who love the status quo...watch the blow-out with which BO wins Wisconsin because that's a warning shot from American voters. You put up HC as this party's nominee and she WILL lose at least 2/3 of Minnesota/Wisconsin/Iowa as well as the electoral college by about 100 points. Sorry. The independents will not buy into 30 years of a dual family monarch as a rallying cry for change.

1948 was the year of the Dixiecrat. Is 2008 the year of the Dumacrat? If so I'm voting McCain.

Posted by: jcmh | February 9, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

LOL, people are still "wishing" for an Obama/Clinton ticket. No way is Obama teaming up with Clinton! She will be part of the ash heap of history after this week. Dream on suckers!

Posted by: Shocked! | February 9, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Hey kathy with your nice cynical comments about "change" and the recession that will result next year if BO is elected. Why does uba-super economist Hillary support interest rate freezes for the mortgage market? How do you say 5-year balloon payment hydrogen bomb on the U.S. economy. Oh, that's right. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Do me a favor cynical, racist, "I come from an upper class lake-side family" designer feminist. Just one of you please define "what" the economy is, and reconcile Hillary's reckless polarizing solutions in a U.S. on the brink of hyper inflation before claiming the "good for the economy" high ground. (Hint, has something to do with the falling dollar and its eventual impact on interest rates. DUH!) Cause hate to say it. Barack kind of won that award when the greatest Fed Chairman of the 20th century came out and endorsed him last week. (Paul Volcker, since you know SO much about the economy I am highly certain that you know all about him, ha ha ha)

So radical, racist HC supporters. Whitewater is not an economic achievement. Sure her husband did some good things in the 90's but that was a different era. And he was a more compelling leader who could LISTEN. Plus it helped that Ross Perot emerged and channelled votes from GWHB. How on god's green earth do you expect the less compelling HC to beat a more compelling candidate (that is McCain vis-a-vis GWHB). Sorry you're not ENTITLED to squat. Angela Merckel, Maggie Thatcher and Eleanor Roosevelt NEVER played the feminist card on route to their exceptional achievements. Come back with a compelling candidate who understands the meaning of meritocracy over polarization. One who has 35 years experience of GOOD Judgement. Not just of being in the power mix.

Obama or McCain in 2008! Please America end the cycle of corrupted power mongers.



Posted by: jcmh | February 9, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

The democratic party is a fantastic party having elected the first woman speaker of the house now lets make history we give Obama the ticket not because he diserves it but because he is the right person at this time. Bill Clinton was fine but that was 1990's this is the 21st century. Change we can believe, yes we can.

Posted by: Bill Clinton | February 9, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

P.S. with regards to Hillary's virtuosity in the debates. Just because she can ramble on and on and on in a combative detailed way, doesn't mean it's good policy. She can talk about every form to fill out, etc., etc. yada yada. Doesn't mean it does the most good in our highly complicated, integrated global society and economy.

I'm sorry but her stances on the economy are frightening at best. And her line about protecting people in our present downturn is abominable given her role in passing GWB's bankruptcy bill. Seems like a theme with Hillary. The knack to make big picture mistakes on a recurring basis and then look back retrospectively with a fine grain comb. Case in point, all her rhetoric about LBJ's role in the civil rights movement yet HC volunteered for Barry "nuke the world" Goldwater's campaign during LBJ's reelection year in 1964. What the *&^%????

Tell you what. I think I'll put my chips with someone who gets the big picture and understands the virtue of good judgement over winning arguments. I mean after all, Barack's gonna be the prez. If he gets it from a top level I think he can delegate the details out to his technocrats. Yeah. That is how it generally works in successful administrations. But you kinda sort have to have a record of good decisions first. And especially not 35 years "experience" of bad judgement.

Posted by: jcmh | February 9, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Hey svreader. Thanks for the religion bashing comments w/regards to stereotyping Obama's uncynical supporters. Boy, big wonder the dums, oops I mean the dems can win anything beyond the west and east coasts in a general election. How do you define being open minded? Apparently bashing on other people's spiritual and religious convictions. Shame on you!

Posted by: jcmh | February 9, 2008 3:02 AM | Report abuse

who are you working for bl. Bill clinton.

Posted by: wes | February 9, 2008 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Wonder how many obama supporters are living on food stamps, welfare, state medical cardsand social security when there's nothinfg wrong with them? I bet 99 out of 100 are...ARE YOU AFRAID THAT WHEN HE LOSES(I STRESS LOSES) THE ELECTION YOUR BENEFITS WILL GO TO.....BETTER START LOOKING FOR A JOB NOW...

THEY ALWAYS SAY WHEN A SHIP IS SINKING TO JUMP..WELL YOU BETTER START JUMPING

.......HILLARY IS GONNA BE PRESIDENT......

Posted by: zoo | February 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the U.S. is ready for a change. Having our first African American president is not only going to do that but it will also help to keep our economy from going into ruins if Hilary is elected president. She will run down our economy and in the papers all you will read about all the scandels happening like what we read when Bill was in the White house. Who wants a president that can't even stick to one side of issues? We need someone who knows what will be best for the country and someone that can stand by their own beliefs and not just follow what their campaign managers are telling them to say. If Hilary is elected whose to say she doesn't change her mind again about such issues as the war, health care, or even issues facing our environment.

We need someone who can stick to their own beliefs and that is Obama.

Barack Obama for President 2008

Posted by: 16 year old OBAMA supporter | February 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who diminishes Obama supporters for falling for his "rhetoric" and "sermons" should remember that the Democratic unveiled him to America at the Democratic convention and gave him the national pulpit. Noone was ridiculing him then. They gave him the opportunity to capture and yes, I dare say inspire a nation. He distinguished himself as a rising star of the party. If the Democrats do not take advantage of his ability to get Independents and Republicans to vote Democrat, they better get used to saying President McCain.

By the way, I also find it amusing that Clinton is trying to call her campaign a "movement" and is now referring to Obama as the "establishment" candidate. Grasp at those straws Senator Clinton, grasp away.

Posted by: Mr. Independent | February 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Hilary Clinton is that she is for whatever reason a very polarizing figure to moderates and conservatives (and even some liberals). I believe that a Hillary candicacy will so energize the Republican base that it could move in supernatural ways, so that dead Confederates might rise from their graves specifically to vote against her.

This upcoming election is crucial. More than likely, the next president will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices (Stephens, Ginsburg), and many more lower court federal judges. Democrats cannot afford to screw this one up. We have a history of being blinded by our insularity, and selecting primary candidates that are utterly unpalatable to the population at large (Mondale, Dukakis, Humphrey). We live in our little blue enclaves of New York, Massachusetts, California, and D.C., not caring as to what appeals to the country at large. We can't afford to do this here.

While I think that Hilary would make a fine President, she simply will not win the national election. The combination of her polarizing image to the right, and her inability to attract independents (especially against a candidate like McCain).

We have to be sensible, and put our differences aside, and select the most electable candidate. This is what the Republicans have done in focusing on McCain - by far the most electable of the Republicans. I'm sure that many would have liked to have seen President Huckabee, but taking electability concerns into account, cast their ballot for McCain. It amazes me how many Democrats are not taking electability into account - a naïve, simplistic, and ultimately, fatal flaw.

I hate to say it, but Obama is electable, Clinton is not, and this is the issue that Democrats should be focused upon.

Posted by: Everything in moderation | February 9, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

BI,
Do you ever read books, or just spout off what you've heard on talk radio? You're the kind of fella that inspires his neighbors to build fences. Other than that, I don't believe you're brain can handle reality, or the slightest bit of truth....I've already wasted my time responding to you.

Posted by: dwb | February 9, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Barack Hussein Obama... Out of the clouds, into the light with more clarity, focuses on Presidential run.

Just say NO to Obama (and drugs - specifically Obama youth supporters)!

"Dreams From My Father"
Mr. Obama's account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23080205/

Posted by: Prakaithip | February 9, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm proposing a vote: who thinks the post by "lavern" (a little ways up) sounds like it was paid for by the Hillary camp? (a Mccain supporter? sounds awfully pro-hillary to me). Notice the very clever choice of words in her message. Anyways, I could be wrong, but i'm just curious as to what everyone else thinks?

Posted by: Paul | February 10, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

The truth is this: If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, McCain will be put in the White House. If Obama wins, he will win big in the general election. I am a white 46 year old college educated woman and a registered republican who has donated money twice to the Obama campaign. A first for me for any presidential election ever! If Hillary is put on the ticket, Obama can forget about getting my vote. He doesn't need her, we don't want her or Bill anymore! Putting Hillary on his ticket will diminish the significance of his achievements. If Hillary wins the Democratic spot, Obama, please run as an Independent and you will take the White House owing nothing to any one!As for McCain being a conservative PLEASE! Read how he's voted the past two years. He really is an Independent too. Is anyone figuring out that the majority of us are not left wing liberal nuts, nor are we right winged fanaticals. We just want to be together again as a nation trying to meet in the middle ground. There are only two choices, McCain or Obama and Obama is my first choice! Go Barak from Republicans for Obama!

Posted by: hopeful 08 | February 10, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

Hopeful 08, I enjoyed your post. The Hillary campaign seems to reflect the attitude of her followers: non-unifying. (example- snub remarks regarding Barack Obama's middle name...) If anybody had any knowledge of this name they would know that Hussein means BEAUTIFUL in Arabic. Calm the ignorance and open your minds to the rest of the world and its cultures!

Posted by: Paul | February 10, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

It seems that the best and/or worst we the people have done for so many years is separate ourselves by party. Why not look at voting for a person, rather then a party. As long as there is separation there is not moving forward. I for one am interested in the goals I have for my country and what it needs. I cannot expect any one person to fulfill everything but I can certainly have my priorities clear and move in that direction when making decisions that affect me and many other people. It amazes me that this is a "people's" government, but very few step up to the plate and actually do anything because they waste time sitting back and complaining rather then doing something. It matters only that there is someone you feel you can count on to bring the change that this country needs now. Then it is up to you to back and support this person and let them know when they are not doing something that is in the best interest of the people.

Posted by: Dawn | February 10, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company