Clinton raps Obama's 'celestial choir' campaign: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted February 24, 2008 5:55 PM
The Swamp

by Rick Pearson

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Hillary Clinton today mocked Barack Obama’s campaign style as one that portrays a divine-like picture of problem-solving to voters when the challenges America face are much more complex.

Delivering a speech to several thousand people at Rhode Island College, Clinton also contended Obama had given up on implementing a universal health insurance program that she said should go hand-in-hand with other Democratic led achievements such as Social Security and Medicare as grand social programs.

Clinton discussed a litany of challenges facing the country, ranging from home foreclosure to responsibly bring troops home from the Iraq war.

“None of the problems we face will be easily solved,” she said before delivering a fanciful description of an Obama speech.

“Now I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.’

“Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear,” she said.

Clinton visited Rhode Island, which is holding its primary on March 4 along with Vermont. But the two states, with a combined 36 delegates at stake, are overshadowed on that date by Texas with 193 convention nominating delegates up for grabs and Ohio, with 141 delegates.

"This little state has a big voice on March the Fourth in chhoosing the next president," Clinton told the crowd.

Clinton again pointed out her differences with Obama on their plans to expand health care. Clinton’s plan would require everyone obtain health insurance while Obama would require it only for children. Clinton maintains Obama’s plan would leave 15 million people uninsured while Obama has charged Clinton’s mandated coverage would force people to buy insurance they may not be able to afford.

She said that of the differences between the two, “the one that is just inexplicable to me is his refusal to put forth a plan for universal health care and his continuing attacks on my plan to do so.”

“I believe Sen. Obama does one thing in speeches, but his campaign does something else. In his speech, he says he’s for universal health care, but his plan is not. His plan cannot cover everyone because there is no requirement that people be covered,” Clinton said.

She likened Obama’s health care plan to FDR saying “Social Security is a good idea, but we shouldn’t make it required. Let’s just sort of go halfway and see what happens.’ Or if President Johnson had said, ‘Medicare’s a good idea. Why don’t we cover a lot of but not all of our seniors.”

“Those two programs have been the greatest blessing for our seniors of anything that has ever been done in American history and they would not have worked if they had not required people to participate,” she said.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Watch out Hillary! Rhode Islanders are smarter than you think! Lest I be accused of plagiarim, I would like to repeat something funny I saw on the Web: "Hillary finally found her voice--it was Bill's , all along!"


"Just words" :) can't do justice to this - you really MUST watch Hillary go into full Cuckoo's Nest mode while she does her routine. She obviously thinks she's slick and funny - but she looks like she has lost it.


Watch out Hillary! Rhode Islanders are smarter than you think! Lest I be accused of plagiarim, I would like to repeat something funny I saw on the Web: "Hillary finally found her voice--it was Bill's , all along!"

Posted by: lori | February 24, 2008 6:07 PM

Funny! They played some of the sound bites of Hillary & then Bill's originals back to back on Meet The Press this morning. Her latest strategy is NOT WORKING. This tactic will sway no one and may turn off a few people who are on the fence. Hillary is only reaffirming why she belongs in the Senate and not the White House.

Obama has my vote in spite of Mrs Clinton's character assassination campaign.


"Blah, blah, blah..." Is she finished yet? Enough!


It takes an inspirational leader to forge the compromise and consensus that will be needed to implement a single payer universal health care plan. Hillary failed miserably in the 1990's. Give Obama a chance in 2008.


"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama"


The more I listen to Hillary the less I want to see her face on my TV over the next 4 years.... that caustic, abrasive, shrill voice that has alienated 1/2 of the population is now alienating even me.


Hillary is up for the challenges that the next president will faces. She's the only one who can get us out of this mess.

Go Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!


Everytime HRC negates Obama, his style or his experience, she is saying Americans are stupid for voting 11 states in a row. We are tired of Professional politicians like Hillary Clinton. Once they get to the White House is it one for all and all for her. Greed. I am a Obamamamma all the way. I do not care if he is black, white, yellow or whatever. He offers the most hope for America. Some of you people ought to read both of their books. Pretty revealing. Nafta for Hillary, yes, until she ran for President. We cannot have another depression. I am so happy so many Americans are voting this year. It means CHANGE is coming.


Look out O-Bots, Here comes Hillary. She's speaking the truth. And you thought you had this all wrapped up. Maybe if you just insult her some more she will go away. I think the O-Bots are bigger haters then the Republicans


Lori, it is Obama followers like you that gives Obama's campaign a cult slant. Why not quote some of your own witticisms, not someone else's. By the way, plagiarism is a serious charge, not to be dismissed so easily. Didn't they tell you that in school?


Forcing people to buy health care or you go after them does not make it Universal Health Care ... it is Forced Health Care.


Hillary its not a 'celestial choir'. Its just Ted Kennedy singing in Spanish on YouTube for Obama and hes doing better Wayne Newton's "Danke Shoen". Also We are also trying to get Wayne Newton to vote Democrat too :-D Imagine Ted and Wayne singing together for the Democrats in 08! Join us Hillary! Don't split the party.


For all the hype of obama and his inspiring speeches...and rosy promises...does he really know what it takes to bring about change? Can he deliver? What if he dont? 4 years will be too long..Is the bar set too low for Obama because he has been an awesome orator and folks believe he can bring people together? How is america sold on his rhetoric? Not saying Hillary is a better choice..but atleast it appears she has endured and thought through the issues facing america better..


At this point Hillary as tried on so many different campaign costumes it might be more appropriate for her to run for best actress instead of President.

Thus far we have been treated to Hillary, as victim, repentant, come back kid, tough fighter, outraged mother, expert, etc, etc. The only fact we have all witnessed is Hillary as the incompentent manager of her own campaign.

Anyone who can blow all that money, diliute the most powerful family brand in democratic politics, and prove she's a looser on both character and policy is not someone who deserves a return engagement in the Lincoln bedroom.

Obama has more experience as an elected official than she does. And yet she continues to claim he's not ready. This new tactic of mocking Obama because she's got nothing else to offer but to tear someone else down will not work. Hillary's attempt to dampen our generation's new found excitment for politics because we're not voting for her is the last straw.

She's simply too damn selfish to be President.


I have a simple personal policy. I don't vote anyone into office who suffers from frequent fits of hysteria.

OK, Some say it's not hysteria, it's a put-on.
I also don't support false front operations.


Many parents neglect themselves to care for their childrens heath needs. Sen. Obamas plan only care for the children. Sen.Clintons plan covers both the parent and the child. Baraks claim to have a universal plan is a fraud.
Barak souns like a fake wrestler hyping a fake wrestling match. "Can you smell whay the baRock is cooking?"


this is all about bill.....and he is going down in flames...
divorce to follow...u heard it here first


Give it up Hillary. Americans really are ready for serious change and unfortunately Washington is rusted onto you in a way which you cannot overcome. Constantly belittling Obama's superior style is sad.

Blake. Melbourne, Australia.


Hillary is the right person at the right time. She will be our next president!


Lets review history, shall we. Hillary Clinton tried and failed the country on Healthcare in the first term of Bill Clintons presidency. She quit. She took her ball and went home a loser. Can we afford that again? No. America is in dire need of a leader. Look at the train wreck of fulfilled campaign promises George Bush's Legacy is. To be unwavering and blindly committed is a sign of stupidity. A great big neon sign. Hillary Clinton is like a weather vane in a tornado. Not good for anything.


Go Obama in Rhode Island!

Cheering from Seattle!


Billary the Uniter showing her true colors. A sad Obituary in a once promising political career. The Clintons have worn out their welcome and after Obama has shown his ability to raise millions, they will fade into obscurity within the DNC.


Wow, she's going too far at this point. Barack Obama has been endorsed by governors, senators, unions, major newspapers, a former Fed chairman, etc. Is she implying that all of these people are delusional, that they are all just suckers? This is how she intends to win the nomination?

Really terrible move on her part. Insulting Barack Obama in an almost childish way is not going to win her anything.

Hopefully this is all over on March 4th. It's time for the Democratic party to unite around Obama and focus on the general election.


Gosh...the only person I know that uses angels and chiors is Sean Vannity. A great American. Just ask him.


Being relatively young, I'm not sure but is social security rquired for everyone as HC stated? If you work independently you don't have to pay into SS and therefore may bot be eligible. So, HC may be wrong abouut everyone having SS. I'm not sure but her universal coverage may not be able to be forced onto everyone as well. just a thought/


The republicans needed a miracle to win this election.. And they've found it. In Barack.. Hussein.. Osama.. Obama.


Hillary had been campaigning too long in Waco, Texas. She is sounding all wacco. Instead of spending her valuable campaign time talking about what she can contribute to this country, she is spending all the time talking about how the opponent is. Every sentence she talks about Obama, it is a few 100 or 1000 votes lost for her. She does not realize that. Why can't she talk about herself and leave Obama for her surrogates to tackle?

She has gone cuckoo. One day she wants to be friendly with Obama on the stage during the debate. The next day she wants to attack him. She seems to be uffering from bipolar disorder. It is time for Dr.Phil to give Hillary some advice.


I still remember how limply the Clinton's supported Lani Guenier and Jocelyn Elders from Republican attacks. Why should Hillary now be trusted to do the right thing?


Yellary!


Lets ask Obama to run in about 8 yrs fom now. WHen he has even the slighest idea how to help America. WHen he and his family can be trusted with the security of the American people. When his own family can muster up enough love and faith in America and be proud of our country. We don't need a lightweight nor a president who cannot find a bounty of caring for all americans and not just his own backyard. God help us!


Anyone who is thinking cult about Obama supporters has to be kidding! We don't put anyone on pedestal! We are trying to elect a Democrat President who can reach out to everyone! Join us!


There's a Chinese proverb that we should know the truth from facts: the bottom line here is that Hillary Clinton is factually the best qualified candidate by virtue of her well- documented, original and enlightened approach to a myriad of vitally important issues as US Senator from NY. I've studied her positions on international, domestic, economic and social issues which, incidentally, are available for anyone to peruse on the Internet. As far as I'm concerned, the record speaks for itself. I know his wont convince anyone ideologically predisposed differently to her positions. And I write not to prove or disprove what the other candidate says, but write what I do know. NY State voters elected and reelected her and not without cause: Just as few short months ago she stood as the justifiably odds on choice as nominee.
What cause would there be to for the automatic delegates to withhold their support now? Believe me; I for sure have neither the wit, nor words, to forcefully convince anyone of my choice for President: I only tell you that which I and, hopefully, you yourselves do know. If we, all of us, have not lost our reason please, for the good of the nation, support her!


Someone said o-bots I like that... little robotons who blindly follow obamas everyword. I am pro Hillary because she really does have experience and I believe is best qualified to run the country and this from an educated young person.
Go Hillary go!!!


Someone said o-bots I like that... little robotons who blindly follow obamas everyword. I am pro Hillary because she really does have experience and I believe is best qualified to run the country and this from an educated young person.
Go Hillary go!!!


I used to really like Bill Clinton, he seemed not only bright but a sympatico type you would not mind having as a friend. However through the last month, the nasty slabs he made against Barack Obama in order to be sure to secure a stay in the White House with Hillary darkens my feelings. Furthermore if one studies closely Michelle Obama's tactful and intelligent interviews with the press one can conclude that her appearance has dignity and purpose.
Just on this basis I would vote for Barack. However if one adds the careful planning of his speeches, the analysis of every item, the restrained responses to Hillary's nasty and humiliating attacks we can not but clap for the man and clap for image he gives the rest of the world.
Bravo and good luck to the Obama couple for their courage !
from an eighty four old lady artist who has during her teen experienced the horror of war and who wishes to spare our country from being seen as a land of unfortunate leadership. I believe the people of this country including the ones who are voting for the first time are finally waking up and seeing it is time for a real change.


Hilary is invoking a 'strawman' argument - claiming that Obama is promising perfection/redemption which allows her to take up a position as 'the realist'. What she totally ignores is the fact that Obama also says he has no illusions about how hard change will be. Anyone who has heard his stump speech knows this. Thus he has already anticipated her attack, and beaten her to the punch. And isn't that just a living metaphor for the differences in their entire campaigning strategies.


Most know that Social Security is nearly bankrupt, and many folks are having their Social Security removed as we speak. Hillary's analogy is not a very strong one. Hillary, the best way to unify Washington is to *not* have you and Bill at the helm. Your methods have long since been exposed.


I am amazed by Obama's Texas sized BS! If you want to drive a car, you pay for auto insurance right? Every car has to be insured. What do you get for that? NOTHING! (only if get into an accident, you have something). For health insurance, you at least get an annual checkup for FREE!
Obama promised a positive campaign! Looking at obama girl on youtube, all i see is some boobs,booty and bashing Bill Clinton and Hillary clinton in the face! Let's assume this jack wins. We will wait for the republican attack ads. Here is some ideas incase they did not think it. They should call him:
1. Barrack HUSSIEN Obama.
2. HUSSIEN obama
3. Barrack HUSSIEN
4. Back to WELFARE state
5. back to AFFIRMATIVE action
6. back to CHOCOLATE city in New Orleans
7. Let all the CHOCOLATE people unite! Everyone will get government jobs- so no one gets fired.
8. BIGGER government


Hilary looks very confused out there.

Her multiple personality is not helping her, it just proves she is unfit to lead.


The health care plans are the same. The details will be modified as needed. Compared to Hillary (and McCain), Barack is Einstein, with a heart of gold. Obama worked his way through Columbia and Harvard Law School,
was *elected* Editor of the Harvard Law Review, has received honorary law degrees from several universities,
taught Constitutional Law,
was a community organizer in Chicago, won *two* Grammys. Barack Obama has brought out new voters in droves, not just because he has charisma (no small feat), but because he has character.


Has anyone noticed that Obama is winning in open primaries and caucuses? Republicans are crossing over to the Democratic side to vote for Obama, not because he’s the best candidate, but because they don’t want Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. They are setting up Obama for McCain because they know he will be easier to beat. National security will be Obama’s downfall.


I saw Hillary at one of her stops in Rhode Island. She is amazing and impressive. Her warmth and intelligence shone through beautifully. She even converted my husband, who was a solid McCain supporter.
she will definitely get my vote!


You Obama cult worshippers.....Do you know how to read and write???Look at his record. Obviously, you all are like sheep, that are really stupid and truely symbolize your party's Logo...'The Donkey'. In January you all will be singing the blues again and whining how the Republicans stole the White House. Add Obama to the list of losers/whiners...Gore 2000, Kerry 2004 and now Obama 2008. Face it, you do not know how to win, because you always nominate a ideolog weasal, who is so detached from reality that they cannot win in Washington. Only Bill Clinton knew how to win and Hillary could have gotten down and dirty with the Republicans. Obama has been lucky. He has never really had a tough challenger. Once the Republicans get going, he will run crying back to Illinois with 'Change he can believe in'.

LOOK AT HIS RECORD. He cannot make tough decisions. That is why his record in Illinois shows present not a 'yay' or 'nay' when the tough resolutions were put through. Maybe he was confused....or MAYBE HE IS INEXPERIENCED.


Hilary's appearances on TV are becoming more and more pitiful and disgraceful. she is loosing it.

Anyone that cannot handle pressure cannot be prsident. Its time the press held her accountable for all these tantrums. America don't want you Hilary and your lying husband.


Reasons for Hilary failures.

1. She can't mange her campaign finances.
2. She can't control her emotions in tough times.
3. She can't handle pressure.
4. She is too dependent on Bill's reputation.
5. She is too inconsitent and she lies.
6. She doesn't know when to give up.
7. She is selfish and doesn't care about the party.
8. She is simply unlikeable.


I found this on the DNC blog. Interesting...

on the 2008 Presidential Primaries:

Karl Rove

Bamboozling the American electorate again
Bush-Cheney strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Hillary, marketing newcomer Obama, an "independent" ticket, and maybe even martial law...
Updated February 21, 2008 (PDF File)

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets hadn't done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time magazine article goes on to explain that rank and file Republicans have switched parties to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Some states, like Virginia and Texas, have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in what appears to be a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination. Even with his more well-known dirty tricks arsenal - phone bank sabotauge, bogus polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's generally popular nationwide (or was until recently) and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter.

If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably. Largely unvetted by the media, the senator carries considerable baggage from his stint as a state legislator, particularly his long-running relationship with Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko. (Rezko goes to trial soon on multiple felony counts of fraud.) So far, the mainstream press has paid lip service to the affair and instead portrayed Obama as a fresh new face in American politics. For instance, the author of the Time magazine article, Jay Newton-Small, offered the following explanation to account for the bizarre love affair G.O.P. voters say they're having with an African American senator on the other side of the aisle. "It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 'there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.'"

Is he kidding? The conservative publication National Journal claims Obama's voting record is the most liberal in Washington, even moreso than Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Not everyone agrees with the assessment, but it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern that Mr. Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama. Yet journalists across the media spectrum have provided this very spin on reality, just as they continue to disparage Clinton as a has-been in her own party.

Last year, at the same time she commanded a huge lead in the national polls, political analysts and professional strategists retained by CNN and other broadcast networks began hammering across the notion that "the voters don't like her". The adjectives "unlikable", "divisive" and "polarizing" are repeated over and over in the same manner as terms like "biological warfare" and "weapons of mass destruction" were used to bombard the American conscience in the lead-up to the Iraq War. In both cases, the terminology traces back to right-wing ideologues, especially those who keep the studio seats warm at Fox News. "There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has," Rove told Reuters last August. Bush's former senior advisor recently joined Fox as a part-time news analyst.

Obama himself recites Rove's "high negatives" comment in press interviews whenever discussing Clinton. His often bitter criticism of the former First Lady and other "Washington insiders", who he says want to "boil and stew all the hope out of him", represents a staple of his core political message. His campaign slogan "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is also reminiscent of the Bush 2000 campaign, which Rove managed. According to Marisa Guthrie of BC Beat, Obama campaign speechwriter Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, a Fox News VP. The latter Rhodes has been with the network since its inception in 1996. You may recall that on election night in November 2000, it was Fox that called Florida for Bush, even though the other networks declared Gore the winner, citing the exit polls. How Fox knew the polls were wrong in advance of the vote tabulation has never been explained.

Her naysayers aside, on Super Tuesday, Clinton captured sizeable majorities in the population-rich states of California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. While Obama won most of the the red states in play, Clinton took Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and Arkansas. Obama later closed the gap in delegates with wins in the caucus states of Washington and Nebraska, along with the Louisiana primary on February 9th. These victories were followed by others in Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Wisconsin and Hawaii, giving Obama a 90-delegate lead, according to the Associated Press. However, neither candidate is expected to reach the 2025-delegate mark needed to cinch the nomination before the convention in August.

Presidential Race or Next American Idol?

Now that McCain has nearly (but not quite) locked up the Republican nomination, it's likely that crossover voting will intensify in the remaining primary states. Yet even when the G.O.P. race was hotly contested by Romney, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani, etc,, only one in three voters cast ballots for Republican candidates nationwide. In red-state New Hampshire, 50,000 more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans, about 10 percent of the total voter turnout. In Iowa, the lopsided vote was even more pronounced, as G.O.P. winner Mike Huckabee received only half the number of votes cast for Clinton, who placed third behind Obama and Edwards.

As ominous a portent as that may be for the Clinton campaign, its beleaguered candidate must also contend with a Madison Avenue-style branding campaign of her opponent that is gaining traction by the hour. Once an unknown quantity, Obama is now viewed by millions of Americans under thirty as a cult icon, the Starbucks equivalent of a maverick politician. Even a cursory review of his record in Illinois and Washington does not bare out such hype. But no one is paying attention to the details, and during a recent talk show, one of Obama's more prominent endorsers was unable to recite a single past accomplishment of the senator when asked. NBC, which has heavily promoted the Obama campaign throughout the primaries, simply describes his candidacy as a "movement".

Not surprisingly, a generation hungry for change has gobbled up Obama's anti-establishment brand like fish in a barrel. Free videos touting the candidate's rock star status began appearing on You-Tube in 2007, including the racy "Obama Girl" clip watched by millions. And nobody would have predicted a few years ago that progressive pundits would be joining in an unholy alliance with Fox to help defeat a viable candidate like Clinton, whose Iraq and other foreign policy positions have drifted miles to the left of her former hawkish stance. Yet here we are. Ari Berman, an editor with The Nation, has been popping up on Fox programs he and his staff once regarded as 24/7 campaign commercials for the Republican Party. The fact that Obama is known to have watered down legislation requiring nuclear giant Exelon to publicly disclose radiation leaks doesn't seem to trouble them in the least. Exelon is Obama's fourth largest campaign contributor. (See the New York Times article for more on the leaks controversy.)

In a blog posted on her website the morning after the Iowa Caucus, popular liberal Adrianna Huffington lauded the Illinois senator as practically the Second Coming. Like others of her stripe, she didn't have much to offer in the way of specifics, and spent the bulk of her remarks railing at Bill Clinton, who she said had conducted himself in an interview as "arrogant and entitled, dismissive and fear-mongering". With an eye to social justice, the founder of Huffington Post might have viewed as a mitigating factor the former president's four-year mission to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for Africa, Asia and New Orleans. Yet like his wife, Bill gets no points for possessing an actual record of public service.

Huffington, it should be noted, was one of several progressive politicos swindled by the California recall referendum in 2002.That was the year Enron's Ken Lay, on the hook for $3 billion pilfered trom the state in the rolling blackouts scandal, succeeded in installing "Governator" Arnold Schwarzenegger through the back door. Candidate Huffington dropped out of the race a few days before the election, conceding the entire affair had been a set-up to divide the Democratic vote.

That she and her peers have allowed themselves to be bamboozled a second time is astonishing. With a few clicks of a mouse, they might have easily learned that former Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Illinois G.O.P. fielded a non-Illinois resident named Alan Keyes to run against Obama for the U.S. senate seat in 2004. Keyes, who had little public office experience, was hand-picked to replace Jack Ryan, the candidate who officially won the G.O.P. primary. Ryan was forced to resign in the wake of an alleged sex scandal involving his ex-wife. (A bit of trivia - The ex-wife is actress Jeri Ryan, who played the character "Seven of Nine" in the television series Star Trek Voyager.) In the general election, Alan Keyes received 27 percent of the vote to Obama's 70 percent.

Here's a little more history you won't find at HuffPost or The Nation: At the time of his senate run, Obama was a relatively minor player, a two-term state legislator who lost a congressional race against African American incumbent Bobbie Rush in 2000. Obama's first significant campaign donor in the 1990's was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Chicago power broker and developer who he met while still in law school. After leaving Harvard, Obama hired on with a community nonprofit agency in Chicago called Project VOTE, where he helped organize voter registration efforts. He later joined the law firm Miner Barnhill & Galland, whose clients included Rezko, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Obama worked on (and later endorsed as a senator) a low-income senior housing development deal in which Rezko and a partner firm run by Allison Davis collected $855,000 in development fees. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "In addition to the development fees, a separate Davis-owned company stood to make another $900,000 through federal tax credits." Later, while Rezko was busy fundraising for Obama, tenants in other Rezko developments launched with taxpayer dollars were having their heat cut off and other maintenance left unattended. The City of Chicago eventually sued Rezko, and an F.B.I. investigation into fraud allegations led to a felony indictment, charged the developer with illegally obtaining income through kickbacks and bribes. His trial, set to begin February 25th, has been postponed to March 3rd. Last June, Davis' longtime business associate William Moorehead was convicted of stealing $1 million in public housing funds.

According to Edward McClelland, writing for Salon.com, "Rezko, after all, built part of his fortune by exploiting the black community that Obama had served in the state Senate, and by milking government programs meant to benefit black-owned businesses." While it may be unclear why Obama would continue his relationship with Rezko after this point, it's indisputable that he did. In 2005, Obama approached Rezko for help in purchasing a $2 million Georgian-revival home in a Chicago suburb. The property deal involved two adjoining lots that the owner wanted to sell together. Rezko's wife Rita bought the first at full price, while Obama acquired the parcel with the mansion at a $300,000 discount. The Rezkos never occupied the property and recently put it up for sale.

Although no laws were broken in the transaction, Obama's 17-year long relationship with Rezko may represent a significant liability in achieving his presidential aspirations. If nothing else, it's not a stretch to assume that a President Obama might take advantage of his office to issue a pardon to someone who made possible his meteoric rise in politics. Regrettably, the press is having none of it, and only grudgingly reported the affair after Clinton brought it up during the CNN debate in South Carolina on January 17th. CNN interviewed Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak, who first broke the story, and confirmed that Obama's explanation that he had simply billed five hours of legal time on a Rezko project fell well short of the truth.

Some of Obama's campaign donations for his senate race came from sources named in the federal indictment. While the Chicago Sun-Times puts the figure of known tainted cash at $168,000, the senator initially agreed to give half that amount to charity, but only as an "abundance of caution", a senior staffer said. Later, after NBC Nightly News broadcast a story about the finances, the campaign announced it would donate the entire amount.

(For more on the Rezko connection, read the articles in the Sun-Times.)

OutFoxing Fox News

NBC may in fact be outFoxing Fox News when it comes to sabotauging the chance for a woman to win the presidency. The network's apparent strategy for dealing with news critical of Obama is to temper it with something negative about Clinton. Shortly after she raised the Rezko matter, for instance, the Today Show's Matt Lauer confronted her during an early morning interview with an old White House photo taken 1990s, showing her and former President Clinton posing with Rezko at an event. There was no evidence that either Clinton had any history with the slumlord, and the sleepy-eyed candidate explained that she's appeared in thousands of pictures over the years, but Lauer's cynical demeanor suggested a sinister intent. The same journalistic device was employed in reporting apparent plagiarism in a speech in Wisconsin incorporated. Nightly News dug up separate video clips showing the New York senator and her husband both reciting the same two-line biblical passage, offering it as evidence that Obama's uncredited use of Governor Deval Patrick's "Just Words" speech in 2006 was nothing out of the ordinary.

A few other examples of media bias are worth noting. On the night before the New Hampshire primary, anchor Williams followed Obama on the campaign trail, flashing a Newsweek cover of the senator and uttering superlatives in the manner of someone undergoing a spiritual epiphany. During the same broadcast, Andrea Mitchell described the Clinton campaign as broke, desperate, and ablaze with in-fighting. Mitchell continued with this theme the following night, assuring viewers that Clinton's lead over Obama in the vote tally would eventually evaporate. She was mistaken.

Following the South Carolina primary, both Mitchell and Meet the Press host Tim Russert claimed on Nightly News that the leadership of the Democratic Party was "mad as hell" at Bill Clinton and lining up to back the Illinois senator. Neither of them named any sources. Russert went on to explain that Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama represented a sea change in the election, and in a taffy-like stretch, deduced that because Ted's brother Bobby Kennedy had been friends with Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farmworkers, the endorsement should pave the way for Obama capturing the Latino vote.

What NBC's crack team of reporters failed to mention was that three of Bobby Kennedy's own children, as well as the son of Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers union had already endorsed Clinton. In Nevada, Latinos in the 60,000-strong Culinary Workers Union defied their white male leadership's endorsement of Obama and helped Clinton win the caucus there. Yet while the Florida primary was showing Clinton with a 15 point lead in the polls, over at CNN, fill-in anchor Bob Acosta was declaring the Obama campaign a "runaway train" after its big South Carolina victory.

On February 10th, two days before the Maryland-Virginia-D.C. primaries, CBS anchor Katy Couric joined the Clinton-bashing extravaganza with a 60 Minutes segment spiced with multiple questions about how the candidate would deal with losing the election. The contentious exchange followed a Steve Kroft piece on Obama that was virtually a mirror image of the Brian Williams New Hampshire epiphany. At the time CBS ran the two segments, Obama was still trailing Clinton in delegates.

To wit, if there's a runaway train in this race, it isn't either of the candidates. For the past 20 years, media outlets have become increasingly consolidated into chains owned by multinational corporations, and over time their news, entertainment and advertising divisions have become increasingly intertwined. The Dan Rather flap at CBS in 2005 first offered a portal into this Orwellian transformation. The NBC/MSNBC network, which has come under fire for the occasionally mysoginist undertones of its cable news programming, is owned by the energy/defense company General Electric. Andrea Mitchell, the network's principle in-house critic of Hillary Clinton, is married to former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan.

Some journalists admit off-camera that Clinton has not been treated fairly in the course of the campaign. In December, Howard Kurtz published an article in the Washington Post examining the widespread media bias favoring Obama. "The Illinois senator's fundraising receives far less press attention than Clinton's," Kurtz wrote. "When the Washington Post reported last month that Obama used a political action committee to hand more than $180,000 to Democratic groups and candidates in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the suggestion that he might be buying support received no attention on the network newscasts." Fear of Flying novelist Erica Jong offers a possible explanation for the unequal treatment in Hillary vs. the Patriarchy, also published in the Washington Post.

Unlike her big Florida victory on January 29th, the news of Clinton's New Hampshire win was not blacked out from coast to coast the next day. Her detractors, however, were marsalling their resources for the next round of artillery fire at Clinton. In the lead up to the South Carolina primary, on-air pundits and Obama surrogates argued that New England's white voters had betrayed their publicly declared support of the black candidate in the secrecy of the ballot booth - hence the reason why the polls showed Obama so far out ahead of Clinton. When the New York senator later made a speech tying Martin Luther King's efforts to President Johnson's signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, highlighting the role of Johnson, the Obama camp lunged. An advisor sent out a four-page memorandum urging surrogates to slam Clinton for disrespecting Dr. King.

If you tracked the coverage of the ensuing feud, you would never know that it was this document that sparked the episode. Before the memo surfaced on the internet, Obama insisted to reporters that neither he nor anyone on his staff had accused Senator Clinton of any impropriety in her speech about Johnson. Hed added that he was "baffled" by her suggestion that they were somehow involved. Meanwhile, South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn said the Clintons' incendiary reaction to the charge of racism had compelled him to renege on an earlier promise to the Democratic National Committee not to endorse a candidate before his state's primary. A few days later, Clyburn retracted his endorsement of Obama, but the damage was done. Black voters overwhelming voted for the African American candiate. Since that time, the Clintons have been barbecued for "playing the race card" in the campaign.

Clinton Unplugged

Intelligent and astute, the New York senator has historically shied away from personal attacks, whether it comes from Manhattan's sexist firefighters or Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball. Her campaign only briefly cut off relations with NBC when another reporter, David Schuster, said the Clintons had "pimped-out" daughter Chelsea as part of their election strategy. This is not to say Clinton isn't capable of landing a knock-out punch when provoked. During the ABC New Hampshire debate, she slammed the tag-team antics of Edwards and Obama when they tried to portray her as the voice of the "status quo". She shot back that both men supported Vice-President Dick Cheney's 2005 energy legislation, a bill "larded with subsidies for the oil companies", adding that Obama also supported the Patriot Act renewal. (He also cosponsored the act.)

However, it was her performance in two CNN debates broadcast from South Carolina and California that turned Clinton into an icon herself. In the first debate, she derided Obama's habit of voting "present" in the Illinois legislature, along with his characterization of Ronald Reagan as a "transformative" president and the Republican Party as the "party of ideas". She said, "I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." In Hollywood, she delivered her other memorable soundbite, "It took a Clinton to clean after the first President Bush, and it's going to take another Clinton to clean up after the second President Bush." Over four million domestic viewers gaped through the raucus proceedings in South Carolina, breaking a cable record. Twice that many watched the second debate, while millions more tuned in worldwide.

Nevertheless, Clinton seems remiss in doing little to challenge the manipulation of the electorate by both the media and the Republican interference in the Democratic primaries. Having agreed to appear in an NBC debate shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4th, she's sure to be walking into another ambush. Perhaps like Benazir Bhutto, the years of political bludgeoning may be finally wearing her down. Regarding Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheney team, all she has mustered to date is her oft-repeated statement, “They’re not going to surrender the White House voluntarily." Last spring, she suggested that another terrorist attack against the United States would inevitably play into the hands of the G.O.P.

Vague as they sound, those two comments may prove prophetic in the event the Obama strategy fails and she goes on to win the Democratic nomination. The implications of a female president for American foreign and domestic policy are profound, creating jitters not only on Wall Street but for the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department. Improbable though it may sound, a number of officials accused of breaking U.S. laws or violating the Geneva Conventions might be arrested and prosecuted by a Clinton-run Justice Department.

If that's not enough to keep Bush appointees and generals lying awake deep into the night, their long-running undercover operation with the ayatollahs in Iran (who paved the way for Reagan's 1980 election), the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, and the Saudi royal family could be curtailed by the staunchly pro-women's rights democrat. The Saudis especially have reason to fret now that they and their counterparts in Kuwait and the U.A.E. have started buying up huge stakes in U.S. banks. Condolleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi are one thing. A Clinton White House is quite another.

For his part, President Bush may have implemented a back-up plan last April when he signed National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, an executive order allowing him to suspend the constitution without prior congressional approval. NSPD 51 gives the President the discretion to declare a state of emergency (i.e. martial law) in the event of a major terrorist attack or other “decapitating” incident against the United States, even if the attack happens outside the country. Under this scenario, he can cancel elections, padlock the Capitol dome and send the Supreme Court justices home. The directive also allows assigns the President's homeland security assistant - a low-level position exempt from senate confirmation - to administer what has been dubbed the Enduring Constitutional Government. (Here’s the text of the directive.)

Delegates, the Conventions and an Indpendent Ticket

Assuming the homeland security assistant doesn't take over the country before next August, the Democratic Party's 796 superdelegates may get to decide the nomination. About half are elected leaders, the other half party officials and campaign managers. The specter of less than 800 people determining the ticket in November has set Obama surrogates back on their haunches, this time arguing that a "brokered convention" decided in "smoky back rooms" will destroy the party. (The local fire marshall may also have something to say about this contingency.) Initially it was thought that two-thirds of the superdelegates were pledged for Clinton, but more recent surveys suggest the situation is fluid.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has issued a press release reassuring Americans that he will intervene before August if the race still remains deadlocked. The extent of his authority to do so relies on the cooperation of both candidates. However, Clinton is already under pressure from the media and Obama supporters to "do the right thing" and bow out of the race, instead of risking a floor fight at the convention. The rules do not require her to do so.

Several times in the past, conventions have decided the party nominee. The most memorable took place in 1932, when neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his rival Al Smith secured enough delegates to cinch the nomination, causing the convention to deadlock. Corporate media tycoonWilliam Randolph Hearst took advantage of the predicament, forcing FDR to adopt an isolationist foreign policy in exchange for the delegates of the third-place candidate, Texas Congressman Jack Garner. FDR also had to take Garner as his running mate. What's interesting here is that after FDR beat Hoover in the general election, a would-be assassin nearly liquidated the new President-elect in Miami. Fortunately the shots went astray when a woman in the crowd grabbed the assailant's arm. Otherwise, Jack Garner would have become president.

Today, with only two candidates left in the race and the innovation of superdelegates, that scenario is moot. Still, the VP slot remains open and there are also lingering questions about what, if any effect the Tony Rezko trial in Chicago will have on Obama. It's possible that global warming crusader Al Gore, who says he'd still like to be president, may be jockeying to enter the election, perhaps as a draft candidate if Obama is forced to withdraw. (Although few voters remember, Gore is the same gentleman who received a grade of "F" from the League of Conservation Voters when he ran for president in 2000. Here's his 1998 press release on Kyoto Treaty.)

If Gore doesn't surface as a candidate at the convention, he could be tapped by the so-called centrist politicians who met last January in Oklahoma to lobby for a bi-partisan, independent ticket. A similar effort, the internet-based initiative known as Unity '08, likewise hopes to field a Democrat and a Republican to run together in the November election. New York mayor and billionnaire Michael Bloomberg is said to be testing the waters for a possible run, but his poll numbers to date look unpromising. Because the G.O.P. played such an anemic role in their own party primaries, the Karl Rove camp may be angling to field their Bush-Cheney successor team as independents.

The DNC is also considering the possibility of holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida in April or May as a way to allocate their delegates, which were stripped because the states were not granted "waivers" to hold primaries before February 5th. The Clinton campaign, which originally agreed to the ban, has since argued that both delegations should be seated according to the primary results. In the case of the Florida primary, the argument has merit, given that Democratic voters there recorded the largest turnout in history. It also appears some of Obama's cable TV spots appeared in the state, though he was not accused of violating the pledge not to campaign there. Clinton won 50 percent of the popular vote, Obama 33 percent, and John Edwards 16 percent. State Senator Bill Nelson, a Clinton supporter, has balked at the suggestion that the ballots cast by 1.7 million Floridians should be replaced with caucuses that might at best attract 50,000 participants. (It's the nation's fourth most populous state.) State party officials argue that Florida's Republican-controlled legislature set the date for the primary, not them.

Michigan held its primary on January 15th. Since Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the ballot beforehand, the votes for Clinton cannot be said to represent a mandate. Unfortunately for her, the stripped delegates in both cases have worked in Obama's favor. With its high percentage of hispanic voters, Florida could have been easily forecast far in advance as a Clinton treasure trove. The same is true for Michigan, whose native son Mit Romney's candidacy precluded the possiblity of a large crossover vote of Republicans. Michigan also boasts a relatively low number of upper-middle-class whites, Obama's strongest performing constituency after African Americans. Had the DNC not sanctioned Michigan and Florida, Clinton would likely have hauled in the lion's share of over 300 delegates up for grabs, radically changing the course of the race. (The G.O.P., by the way, didn't punish either state for moving up their primaries.)

If the DNC opts to schedule caucuses, Obama would likely emerge the victor, since this form of voting often requires traveling long distances, waiting outside a building while volunteers sort out the logistics for directing voters to different room numbers, and then attending a meeting that lasts one or two hours. Such factors tend to deter Clinton's base: older voters; wage earners who work during the hours of the caucus: voters who need childcare, don't own a car or have other obligations; immigrants and those for whom English is a second language.

And then, of course, there's Texas. This state allots a third of its delegates by way of a caucus, and the rest through an open primary. This is Bush-Halliburton-Enron country after all, so we can anticipate another massive Republican crossover drive to help Obama pick up as many delegates as possible. Thus, even Clinton's superdelegate failsafe may prove insufficient in overcoming the stacked deck against her. Thanks to Karl Rove and his friends in the shadows, the Democratic nominee may ultimately be determined not by Democrats but by the G.O.P., with the help of its unwitting accomplices at the DNC.

- Rosemary Regello editor@thecityedition.com Copyright 2008 TheCityEdition.com


Hussien is a joke and a con man. Wakeup before its too late!


If you think that having health insurance through your job means you won't have to pay Hilary's mandatory health insurance premiums - think again! According to a September 18 Associated Press article, Clinton said in an interview with the AP: "... she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination'."

Go Obama!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070918-0856-clinton-apinterview.html


If Hillary were in Hollywood tonight they would surely grant her an Academy Award for this bizarre performance. Frankly, we have been looking at Bill and Hillary coming apart at the seams. How unfortunate. And just when we thought the once brilliant Ralph Nader has had his fill of Presidential politics here he comes. Lord, what fools these mortals be!


Chris Bath, maybe you forgot that the Republican Party took over Congress in 1994 after Hill's health care reform failed in Congress. But maybe trying to push it in the subsequent 13 years under their leadership would have got her somewhere...

From where I sit, we have another Carter on our hands. He told the nation "I won't lie to you" after Nixon and Ford and many voters flocked to him for it. After he was elected, the Democratic Congress walked all over him. And guess what? He was also a relative unknown who came out of nowhere (Georgia, to be exact) promising big change. And what did America get? The stepping stone for Ronald Reagan.

Obama is cashing in on our hopes and dreams. We want 'change' but what that 'change' happens to be is a question I don't feel like finding out the answer to after he is elected.

But maybe my skepticism is misplaced. All I have to say is that he better make a lot of 'change' in Washington in his time (if elected) because, otherwise, his presidency will look pathetic in hindsight.


On health care; neither candidate's plan is 'universal.' I'm from Canada, where we really do have single payer universal health care, and I think Obama's plan is less universal, but unfortunately more likely to become a reality than Hillary's in a country where so many people view government as the enemy. Obama recognizes that acheiving truly Universal health care can only be acheived incrementally, rather than being forced upon people as Hillary's does. In this regard Obama shows a better understanding of how to achieve change.

On NAFTA, Hillary is a flip-flopper.

On dirty campaign tactics and righteous indignation
about deceptive mailers, I think Hillary is beyond hypocritical.

Her angry tone is so obviously calculated and shows how desperate her campaign has become. Fortunately, I think most Americans see through this kind of stunt from her now and will reward Obama's reasonable tone in Ohio and Texas.

On bashing the hopeful positive movement that Obama has engendered over the course of his campaign, I think Hillary is just plain jealous. Disparaging the size of Obama's campaign rallies makes no sense at all. She seems to be angry at anyone who can't see her superiority.

I don't think she's a bad person, but she is simply not who America needs in the Oval Office. Too polarizing. Her latest campaign slogan might read, 'The ends justify the means.' As she seems quite willing to hurt her own party to secure the nomination.

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!


It seems as though Hillary has finally come undone.

For someone so fixated on
"words", substance has not left her lips for weaks.

Negative campaigning is tactful perhaps against the opposing party, but tasteless when used against within ones own party.

I had thought Hillary had changed. Wrong again!


Everytime HRC negates Obama, his style or his experience, she is saying Americans are stupid for voting 11 states in a row. We are tired of Professional politicians like Hillary Clinton. Once they get to the White House is it one for all and all for her. Greed. I am a Obamamamma all the way. I do not care if he is black, white, yellow or whatever. "He offers the most hope for America. Some of you people ought to read both of their books. Pretty revealing. Nafta for Hillary, yes, until she ran for President. We cannot have another depression. I am so happy so many Americans are voting this year. It means CHANGE is coming."

Americans are stupid we proved it 8 years ago, and again 4 years ago. You are about to see it proven again. Try not buying the "Hype" and try looking at the real world.


Lets ask Obama to run in about 8 yrs fom now. WHen he has even the slighest idea how to help America. WHen he and his family can be trusted with the security of the American people. When his own family can muster up enough love and faith in America and be proud of our country. We don't need a lightweight nor a president who cannot find a bounty of caring for all americans and not just his own backyard. God help us!

There's a lot of this 8 years and then try stuff against Obama from the Clintonistas. The simple fact is, if Hillary somehow manages to win, it'll be a very long time after her first term ends in embarrassment before the public will ever allow a democrat back into office again. But I digress, with the web, and other means of obtaining information, her core constituency, the uneducated, is becoming a smaller and smaller group with each passing day. This is what ultimately will prevent her from ever getting her grubby hands on the office they have so sullied from their past behavior


Never thought I would witness the self destructun of Hillary.........Bill yes....but Hillary? She has lost her status and is becoming irrelevant.


The masses of Americans blindly following a seemingly godlike charismatic speaker shows the blatant and sad epidemic of idealism in our country. When are you going to wake up and smell the decay of our country? We need a leader with realistic insight into our country's, our world's problems. Obama is just a liberal version of George W. Bush, Jr. The people of America followed him blindly for two miserable terms. Look at the state of our country and the world now. Vote smart, not naive. Vote to clean up Bush's mess. Vote Clinton!


I will support Hillary
Clinton .We need her leadership and experience.
Believe me I have seen her
in action when she worked for the Congress.
I ask all my friends and
the entire second congressional organization
i built along with Ed Beard in the 70's to put her over the top get the vote out!
Peter Bauer former assistant
to Congressman Ed Beard
Dem.R.I. former Democratic
Chair.



Don Cancelmo,
If experience is what counts,
how come Bidden/Dodd/Richardson are
no longer in the race?
Bill Richardson is OVERQUALIFIED for the job.
Bidden and Dodd are fine
statesmen. Yet, they don't have the grassroots support such that nearly one million people contribute to their campaign, or the popular votes even among Democrats abroad.

This is what you need in order to build a majority in the government and get things done.

~ Jess


Seems to me that Democrats are falling for Obama much like the Republicans fell for George 8 years earlier.... Talk is cheap.


No wonder Rush has such a big following. Hillary lead the race from the beginning because the first impression on democrats minds was Obama doesn't have the experience. Suddenly, after a few flowery words, and copied speaches, our party seems out for Hillary's blood. We always complain that the religous right cover their eyes and refuse to look at the facts and that's what's happening here with this semi-religous like voting that's going on lately.


Wow. I don't think I have read one intelligent reason in all these anti-O posts as to why I should not vote for him.

Nice kindergarden level education word play with Hussein, Osama! You get a gold star for today David!


Don't worry Dr.Don

Obama's best friend, Syrian born Tony Rezko, will go on trial next week on extortion charges....a little too late for Hillary to capitalize on before her doom, but John McCain will have the spring, summer and fall to
expose Obama's corruptible soul.

Paulo


The Republicans are laughing their bottoms off at the Dems and the Obama hysteria: fainting, chanting, swooning, thrills up their legs. Wow! It's like a GOP dream-come-true. Rose, it feels like you flyin, eh?


It's a simple concept. Leadership requires getting people 1) to listen to you 2) to follow you. 3) taking responsibility once you get there. I think Mr. Obama wins all three. I'll take a celestial choir after four years of Bush honky-tonk and certainly over any future involving Clinton martyr-rock.


Thankfully Dr. Don, millions of Americans are sick of simply handing the reigns of power over to the priveleged few lucky enough to be born into wealthy and influential families. Luckily, Obama doesn't have any ties to the Haliburtons, Enrons, or World Banks that dominate our political scene. The Clintons are a part of that past, and like it or not, the rest of us are now ushering them to the exit door.


What a C.. no really is this the last push of a dying campaign. One hopes so.


Let's give credit where it is due. Obama is a great orator.

The reality. We have had divisions in America even after more than two centuries of freedom.

The solution? Obama will unite us.

Will all the naive please raise their hands?


Hillary I believe it is time to quit and support Obama.That will be more graceful than mocking the millions of democrats who believe Obama is the better candidate.
Don't think you are being rejected. People are simply going for the better candidate.


Hillary touts SS and medicare as great accomplishments. They are both headed for disaster in 20 years and will be discontinued. They are neat ideas but unaffordable in the long run. GO OBAMA!


I now support Hillary . Until I saw the full debate on tv last week, I wasnt sure who to support.Throughout this campaign, I liked what Barrack had to say and I was looking for a way my heart and my head could agree on a candidate so I had to go on my own-to read up some more on both candidates.I was familiar about Hillary's track record (the good, the bad and the ugly)but knew little about Barrack's. One recent article that I read caused me to question who's side Barrack is really on. Here is a web site link to the New York Times article that I read (one of many articles which concerned me)-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate-
Mr Mike Mcintire February 3, 2008. I have real questions about Barracks judgement abilities.I do not question Hillarys strength of character.I trust her to do right by the people.


Hillary is just more Bush. Her campaign was a disaster because she hired her "friends" over competence (like Bush), thinks there is an endless supply of money and keeps on spending (like Bush) and withholds her White House records.


You all are so blind by obama's crew... Shame on you, have your own voice for once and use your critical thinking. ... Hillary is a realist. She is a bitch, but you know what - she gets things DONE! We need people like that to run our country! As for Bill; is it really a bad idea to have two, really smart, people run our country?

Use your heads for once, please!!!


Hillary is not splitting the party, Obama decided to split the party by going after the youth vote and the african american vote and claiming all those that supported Hillary were over 50 and uneducated. Somehow those folks didn't count. If Obama is the nominee he will need her supporters. I suspect 50% of them will support McCain for National Security reasons because they truly do love this country. Thank you Obamafites... for another four years of a Republican in the Whitehouse.


With Hillary's high-pitched, almost shrill voice lately, and hissy fit on Saturday, her temper would get us in a heap of trouble. Hillary wishes she had the oratory skills and ability to really bring people together and get excited about her.. She would be lucky to have a Karl Rove running her campaign. Her high paid pant-leg kissers aren't doing her much good.


I am a Ron Paul supporter.

I'm now also following the Obama/Clinton II slugfest, to see what the opposition is up to.

Clinton II seems desperate now, as evidenced by her outright mockery of rival Obama.

Do those who have followed the O/C contest from the beginning think that Clinton II will finally go away if she loses the Dem. nomination to Obama, and take Clinton I with her?


I wish she'd been doing this from day one but Hillary has been trying to avoid a negative campaign. What a breath of fresh air. Obama is so full if it it's not even funny. Why do you never see Obama doing Q&A with his audiences? Because he doesn't do them, he pontificates and pontificates and says 'Yes I Can' and 'Change' as if, as Hillary finnaly poins out, they're magic words. Why doesn't he just say 'abracadabra?' Obama is getting the most disturbing free pass I've ever seen. He says nothing, and you can bet he will do nothing as President. Hopefully it's not too little too late but it probably is.


Wait... so Clinton is going to unify the Democratic vote and pull in the needed independents by MOCKING Obama's supporters as cultists and delusional idiots for supporting Obama?

Well, okay then. Obviously this is a woman with a rock-solid plan. Alienate 53% of the Democratic primary voters thus far and then plan to win in November. Brilliant!


Well! HE talks of bringing us all together for a better USA and a better world. That truly brings hope.
SHE talks about HER solutions. A bit scary, isn't it considering past achievements.


The Clinton campaign chose to try to split the party by attempting to pit whites voters against black voters. They hoped Whites would vote against Obama because of his black support. Needless to say, Americans were not as stupid as the Clintons planned and voters went for the best and most likely to win candidate


"The republicans needed a miracle to win this election.. And they've found it. In Barack.. Hussein.. Osama.. Obama."
Real original, David. Are you in fifth grade? Doesn't your mom have a web filter so you don't wander into grown-up territory? Why don't you go watch the NASCAR. Cars buzzing around and around. Fun! Let the adults talk now, okay?


Clinton's argument is the most educated, financially successful people are fooled by Obama but the financially, less educated are not fooled. Maybe that will work on the undereducated. The one thing I am sure Obama will not let that pass.

There she goes again insulting the Democratic electorate. What a president she would make! Fortunately we won't find out.


There are so many of you who make statements of fact that are not factual at all. You need to go to fact checks.org and get the right information instead of believing everything you hear.


If Hillary loses this race, she has no one to blame but herself. She started as if it was an entitlement & that African-Americans were obligated to vote for her. Every debate she has belittled, scolded and insulted all the other contenders. I'm for Obama because I believe you cannot expect a different result using the same old methods. I watched her with the fliers and pictured her in the White House screaming at anyone who dared to disagree with her. She has had more than a decade to pass Universal Health Care since her failed attempt which she screams she's so passionately about...oops too polarizing wouldn't get the republicans to agree.

I don't know why she's so desperate to return to the White House and that scares me. That's why the constitution gives the presidency a time limit, and from this campaign I see Chelsea Clinton being thrown in the spotlight, when will it end !they are bringing nothing new, its Bill's nineties playbook to solve the 21st century problems. The so call fear of the Republican attack machine if he wins is no different from what he heard when he started against the Clinton machine. There is nothing to fear, there are ways to remove a non-performing president, and if this country is worried about a product of their own society, a graduate from the top business school in the country, head of the Law review then you are saying to young people coming up that the American dream is beyond them because they don't have the pedigree disguised as experience. When I went for my first job, I had no experience but I had a great work ethic, and a dedication to succeed, and I thought outside the box, today I'm a Vice President. Obama for President,majority rules!


Every hour that goes by she alienates another 10000 voters.You can see it in her face-cruel,mean,warped,and mentally unwell.She should finish on a friendly note and hang it up after she is crushed in the next primaries.What a sad pathetic state she has sunk to.


Don't forget Clinton was financially irresponsible when it came to running her campaign. What is your excuse for that?

Can not manage a campaign, so she'll have some work to be ready on day one.


There are so many of you who make statements of fact that are not factual at all. You need to go to fact checks.org and get the right information instead of believing everything you hear.

Posted by: NOBAMA 2008 | February 24, 2008 10:14 PM

Thanks know-it-all. Speak for yourself next time. We've done our homework. I suggest you do yours. Your vague, querulous comment speaks volumes about the position you've taken. Which is what???

Obama for president 2008!!!


How childish of those of you to mock Obama by comparing him to "Osama bin Laden" C'mon people! Wake up and use your freakin' heads!! It's people like you that gives the United States a bad name throughout the world. You're the same lame brains who blindly followed GWB into a false war and now innocent families in Iraq, Afghanistan, AND the United States have to bury their loved ones for an unjust cause! Obama/Edwards in '08! Time for positive change and non-partisan politics to prevail!


Luckily, Hillary isn't going to win the nomination. Just a couple weeks until we get to stop hearing from her idiots.


Hillary is playing her favorite role as the great divider. I just wish she would allow us to get the factual information of her White House records.


"I think the O-Bots are bigger haters then the Republicans"

Posted by: Mike V | February 24, 2008 7:01 PM

Sorry hater, but we concede defeat on this comment. You got us.


Could this get any worse? She is deteriorating before our eyes. At this rate, Hillary couldn't be elected to the post of dog catcher.

Hillary, for your own sake, and for ours, call it quits before you lose your last shred of dignity.


Hilary's display on this campaig trail is a disgrace to womanhood. I was so ashamed when I saw her angry outburst regarding the fliers. There was no need for the theatrical performance. That alone shows she lacks sound judgement.

My vote goes to Obama.


Its time Hilary stop making a fool of herself and call it quits.

I can't believe some dumb donors are still donating money to the sinking ship.


been reading these comments. some ok....some ok hmmmmm...but i don't think your like or dislike for the canidates, will change anyone's mind. a lot of you are still living in the past, and dwelling on what has happened in the past.what Bill has done should have no bearing on Hillary, and you keep bringing up thing's which happened in 1992. I think she has been tested and tried, and still come out fighting. Now that is a real woman. first you talk of her as beng to soft...now it is about her being crude. really which is it? I think she is just tired of sitting back and let Obama bash her. At least she respects our country...she wears the american badge put's her hand over her heart when the pledge is recited....and has been proud of her country for 60 years not just since she has been an adult....for the first time..lol. What is going to happen we are going to bt facing more of bush. GET a BRAIN. the rep's are supporting Obama for one reason. They're not ready to give up the white house. Obama won't fight them on the issues. and they know Hillary wll fight till the end. get out of the past and look ahead.


been reading these comments. some ok....some ok hmmmmm...but i don't think your like or dislike for the canidates, will change anyone's mind. a lot of you are still living in the past, and dwelling on what has happened in the past.what Bill has done should have no bearing on Hillary, and you keep bringing up thing's which happened in 1992. I think she has been tested and tried, and still come out fighting. Now that is a real woman. first you talk of her as beng to soft...now it is about her being crude. really which is it? I think she is just tired of sitting back and let Obama bash her. At least she respects our country...she wears the american badge put's her hand over her heart when the pledge is recited....and has been proud of her country for 60 years not just since she has been an adult....for the first time..lol. What is going to happen we are going to bt facing more of bush. GET a BRAIN. the rep's are supporting Obama for one reason. They're not ready to give up the white house. Obama won't fight them on the issues. and they know Hillary wll fight till the end. get out of the past and look ahead.


Maybe both lobama "change" freaks and hillary is the wo/man freaks should go to the Gov websites and check out their voting records and issues. OBISMAL for obama especially the bill he has sponsored the something or other Poverty Act that will require the USA to pay 87 BILLION dollars in 10 years to the U.N. to pay for third world poverty..for dunces! it is Wealth Redistribution of American taxpayers money to every country/nation worldwide and this is FOREVER. That is just ONE tiny part of what Dems want to do. WAKE UP YOU PEOPLE AND READ just what these people have in store for Us and our money/tax dollars. Can you afford that bill on top of the Billions it will cost every year for FREE healthcare? I can only work 2 jobs/17 hours a day...I don't have anything left to give to anyone....don't even see the wife and kids anymore.


....RON PAUL... the roaring of thunder shall awaken you from your dreams. Darkness fall's as you stumble to your window. suddenly that flash and beam of bright light, will fall upon you...OH NO ..you were just struck by lightening..... GO HILLARY...FIGHT TO THE END.


Voting History of Obama:

Statistic:

Barack Obama missed 185 of 1098 votes (17%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Extremely Poor relative to peers)


Hillary Clinton has 35 years experience as a partner in America's most dysfunctional marriage. Of course that makes her qualified to be president.... "a dysfunctional president for a dysfunctional America." What could be more appropriate?


I really dont beleive Tony Rezko will have an impact. If they did they would of used it by now.

However you never know. The good ole people always put on a sordid affair to dismantle the left.

As to the Hillary supporters, my my you are delusional. Unfortunately at the expense of your party. You should read about Hillary's work as a trial lawyer in Arkansas. Where she villified a 12 year rape victim. The girl was young had to plead her case to the jury and Hillary came after her with no remorse to win the case. To this day the victim stands by her story. The state lost the case due to the prosecutor botching the evidence. The defendant was a pro bono client of Hillary's. The defendant wanted a tough female attorney and he got one. Hillary Rodham was her name. The defendent ended up being convicted on a lesser charge, and the 12 year old girl now 46 is now a meth addict. Go Hillary? Not under those circumstances would I want her for my president. What happen if that was your daughter. Ladies what happen if that was you?

Some people play to win without guilt or conviction. I rather have someone in office who has a little empathy in her heart. I guess she was just doing her job.


I really don't believe Tony Rezko will have an impact. If they did they would have used it by now.

However you never know. The good ole people always put on a sordid affair to dismantle the left.

As to the Hillary supporters, my my you are delusional, unfortunately at the expense of the party. You should read about Hillary's work as a trial lawyer in Arkansas. Where she vilified a 12 year rape victim, the girl was young and did not know how the system worked. Why would the prosecution let her go on the stand is beyond me. She had to plead her case to the jury and Hillary came after her with no remorse to win the case. To this day the victim stands by her story. The state lost the case due to the prosecutor botching the evidence. The defendant was a pro bono client of Hillary's. The defendant wanted a tough female attorney and he got one. Hillary Rodham was her name. The defendant ended up being convicted on a lesser charge, and the 12 year old girl now 46 is now a meth addict. Go Hillary? Not under those circumstances would I want her for my president. What happen if that was your daughter? Ladies what happen if that was you?

Some people play to win without guilt or conviction. I rather have someone in office with a little more empathy in her heart. I guess Hillary was just doing her job.


smmy: "I now support Hillary . Until I saw the full debate on tv last week, I wasnt sure who to support.Throughout this campaign, I liked what Barrack had to say and I was looking for a way my heart and my head could agree on a candidate so I had to go on my own-to read up some more on both candidates..."

Sorry, Sammy, but either you are completely new to commenting OR you're the Hillary-supporting Sammy that continuously commments on barackobama.com, abc, cnn etc. for the past month or so.

I call BS on "until I saw the full debate on tv last week"


Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What’s on the table?

Taking these issues seriously – all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we’ve waited so very long – and still – not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!


The only thing crazy about this campaign is the amount of naive sheeple willing to follow a guy with little experience who attends a church that practices reverse racism. Please...I'll take Hillary over this empty suit.


Obama is a joke, and Hillary is rightfully mocking his ridiculous campaign. Obama should be in a boy-band, not running for the nomination. You CANNOT unite a country through words, it's hopeless. You can bring together a cult through words though, which is what Obama has done. He's misleading people by appearing vague so that they can project whatever hopes they have onto him. He's a manipulator.


Go Hillary!

She reminds me of the PM of New Zealand, Helen Clark. She isn't a great speaker or particulary likeable but she has just been re-elected for her third term as leader of NZ, and has done great things for unemployment and crime rates in the country.

We don't need a cult leader, Obama should get out now before people start really turning on him.


To all those who think we poor "O-Bots" are naive, delusional, gullible and easily tapped? Observe your candidate. Observe yourselves: You are so jaded and cocksure about the depravity of politicians that you don't realize how you are a part of a broader historical context, that your viewpoints have everything to do with the politics of an era (post-Vietnam), and that your era is coming to an end.

Why do you think our "messianic" movement began with the grandparents and grandchildren voting again the 45-50somethings in between. The teenagers of the "Great Generation" that fought WWII remember a different kind of leadership than you do. "Generation X" hopes for it. In a way, it is like a legacy willed over the heads of the Boom Generation to ours. I remember one of the first stories to appear in January involved an 84 year old man with tears in his eyes saying that "he could dream, too." I remember another story about thousands of Alaskan citizens walking a mile across a frozen lake to get to a polling station to vote for Obama. If you can read all these stories and not be inspired, but only rail pessimistically against those of us who are, what does that make you?

We don't want to roll our eyes and wear T-shirts with an elephant on the front and a donkey on the back with the tag line: "Screwed either way."


Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What’s on the table?

Taking these issues seriously – all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we’ve waited so very long – and still – not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!


The Messiah will change you! Come to Obama! Follow me to Guiana drink the Kool-Aid! Drink The Kool-Aid! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK! You can change the world! YEAH CHANGE THE WORLD INTO WHAT???? WHO THE F KNOWS ! BUNCH OF KOOL-AID DRINKIN NUMB SKULLS. HAS HE EVER SAID HOW HE IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD? ARE THEY THE CHANGES YOU WANT? WILL HE USE THE FAITH BASED INITIATIVE TO FUND HIS CHURCH OR YOURS? WILL HE FIX YOUR TOWN OF CHICAGO? WILL HE GET ANY REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FROM THOSE RED STATES THE WERE DEMOCRATS FOR A DAY TO VOTE FOR HIM? WHAT WILL HE ACTUALLY GET DONE. HOW BAD WILL DEMOCRATS LOSE IN STATES THAT HAVE DEMOCRATS UP FOR REELECTION. BEFORE YOU DRINK THE KOOL=AID THINK ABOUT THE CHANGE YOU WANT AND THE CHANGE HE WANTS! IS HE REALLY OHIO OR TEXAS OR VERMONTS IDEA OF CHANGE!


Well, Clinton won my vote after the most recent debate. I was an Obama supporter but I started having doubts as of a month or so ago. I was enchanted with his ideas of change. But as time passed I noticed that in comparison to Clinton, he was lacking specifics. You can't deny that Obama out speaks Clinton. But as I'm coming to realize, I care more about WHAT a candidate says than HOW they say it. Health care was a big clincher for me. While Obama's plan is respectable, lowering medical costs and health insurance costs is far from radically progressive... especially coming from someone who speaks so much of change. In contrast, Clinton (and Edwards when he was still in) pushing for a universal health care systems (something very controversial by our American political standards), now I see that as change. That's not to say that I see either of them true liberals (politicalcompass.org charts them as being moderate conservatives). Case in point, they both voted for that silly fence. But Clinton doesn't cloud herself as such to the extent of Obama. Instead, she sticks to the issues. And while I still hold Obama in high esteem (how can you not?)... Go Hillary '08!


What ever the outcome, history is about to be written in the US. First Lady or Black President. Hillary don't rely on your husband's prowess. The Clintons,If you love The US, give up for Obama, for he is what Americans need


The fall of the Clintons is pure over-confidence and pride (pride goeth before a fall anyway) or how else would one explain a situation where a supposed contender for a leadership post was behaving like an incumbent from the onset? The result is what we're seeing now. When she was under the illusion that Dem.nomination was already under her armpit, Sen. Obama and allies were out in the field campaigning for every vote. When you lower yourself, the masses lift you up! I've started noticing the same over-confidence in John McCain. I can safely predict that if this trend continues, we are going to see a President Obama in the whitehouse come November. Mark my words.


Shrillary, This is not the approprate time to go off your meds!
Resume your normal doseage and stay away from Bill's stash!


As the saying goes, "Avoid picking up on old turf, move forward and pick up on the new". I hope and wish that all Americans come to the party and unite for the same goals, PEACE and PROSPERITY... with yourselves and the real world. I strongly encourage you to vote with your heads, save the heart business for later.


To the person who said Obama doesn't do Q&A with his audience, Obama did a Q&A today in Ohio. And unlike Hillary, he doesn't plant questions.

Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. He's past more substantive legislation than she has. And he has a better track record of getting bipartisan support for his legislation.

Hillary's "experience" argument is a canard. Among her 35 years of experience are over a decade spent as a corporate atty and a board member of Wal-Mart. Hardly a progressive resume.

Obama has the vision, the leadership and the substance to lead this country. Anyone who thinks he's all fluff has not been paying attention. He provide as many specific policy proposals as anyone else. And on top of that, his charisma and idealism are motivating those who have been politically apathetic to re-engage in politics. Only a cynical, divisive meglomaniac would carry on the way Hillary has, insulting millions of voters and hundreds of elected officials and newspaper editorial boards who have endorsed Obama.

How could anyone watch Hillary's calculated, manipulative behavior and not see through the charade? She's the charlatan. She'll do or say whatever it takes to win. She's perhaps the most insincere politician I've ever seen.


Shrillary, This is not the appropriate time to go off your meds!
Resume your normal dosage and stay away from Bill's stash!
Should have used spell check


LOL... Alex, you were never an Obama supporter! Obama supporters don't change their minds because of some slight difference in a single policy. A true Obama supporter would realize that Hillary had her chance in the '90s and failed to deliver on health insurance! That's what change is all about! Don't you get it? Electing someone who CAN change things - and not give excuse after excuse why she couldn't in all those 35 years of experience she keeps going on about!


Hillary, the writers strike is over. Put a few to work. Meanwhile, I'm supposed to vote for you, why?


I saw footage of Hillary's insane rant. She's not doing herself any favors. p.s. for all the Obama dissemblers, suck on this.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
* His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and
* co-sponsored another 427.
o These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
o **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act,- became law,
o **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
o **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill,- became law,
o **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
* In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.


Hillary has LOST IT!!!


Didn't read all the other blogs, but I haver a question fo r Sorry Haters--first--you're mistaken--people criticizing Sen. Obama don't hate him--we just want what's best for our country after 3 stolen elections. Yes, we do have a right to hold ANY candidate's feet to the fire. As to the above listed 'sponsored
' bills---how many did he then back away from by voting 'present' or missing the vote? Got that data?


How can Hillary win in November after she insults over half of the Democratic leaning voters?!?!


America, on an intuitive level, understands that Sen. Obama may not have a long resume', which is a risk. But they also know that this may be our only chance to get out of this, "government going no where fast box" that we are in.


Shame on you David!

You said the following: "The republicans needed a miracle to win this election.. And they've found it. In Barack.. Hussein.. Osama.. Obama"

You would be loved by a "News" network we all know.


Jess--politics ain't tiddly winks. Don't be insulted if you support a candidate and the opponent (who disagrees only SLIGHTLY) goes after their policy and their campaign tactics. Remember how dirty Obama was to Alice Parker? Look this up. The Obama supporters act like this is the first election they've ever paid attention to. Glad you're on board, but listen and learn something.


Go Hillary! I love that you are a fighter. Hillary is just what the U.S. needs. She's the most qualified and electable candidate in the race. The Dems are lucky to have her. She can win the states that matter most to a Dem victory in November. Obama is not qualified to be President and is unelectable. WAKE UP DEMS, VOTE SMART, VOTE HILLARY!!


The GOP is about to get their Nader.

The word around DC is that the Libertarian Party is going to offer Ron Paul the nomination to be their Presidential candidate. He will accept and take his 9% of the GOP vote with him.

Now who do you think will make a difference?? Ralph "0.3%" Nader, or Ron "9%" Paul??


this is a calculated strategy and cynical - if going negative works, then HilLIARy is back in the race, if going negative doesn't help her get back in the race, there remains an upside to going negative on obama for HilLIARy - hilLIARy's negative camoaigning now will hurt obamas chances of winning the general election and then if he loses that, HilLIARy will be the democratic candidate to beat in 2012

when are you people going to see - the clintons love the clintons more than country , party or anything ????

they once tasted the power they craved for so long and NOTHING is beyond them as far as getting back that power - they are like gollum wanting his "precious" ring of power back

p.s. hilLIARy is the one who played the "Democrats shouldn't campaign negatively" card early in the campaign - why ??? because she lived in a glass house and couldn't handle criticism - but she ALWAYS planned to go negative in the general election (and blame the republicans for doing so) - she just wanted to be untouchable during her inevitability campaign - but they underestimated obama, so HilLIARy is going negative sooner than expected - double standard !!!! (what she really menat was , "as long as I'm the frontrunner, let's none of us go negative") just like "let's not count the florida / michigan delegates" - that is until she needs them


hilLIARy - always a major part of the negative politics and gridlock of the past two decades - she never wasn't - in fact, she was chief initiator/instigator as much as anybody - just listen to her - accusing obama of rove tactics - it's worse than the pot calling the kettle black for two reasons A) she's worse than rove and B) she lies about it


this is a calculated strategy and cynical - if going negative works, then HilLIARy is back in the race, if going negative doesn't help her get back in the race, there remains an upside to going negative on obama now for HilLIARy's sake (and hers alone) - hilLIARy's negative camoaigning now will hurt obamas chances of winning the general election and then if he loses that, HilLIARy will be the democratic candidate to beat in 2012

when are you people going to see - the clintons love the clintons more than country , party or anything ????

they once tasted the power they craved for so long and NOTHING is beyond them as far as getting back that power - they are like the pathetic gollum wanting his "precious" ring of power back

p.s. hilLIARy is the one who played the "Democrats shouldn't campaign negatively" card early in the campaign - why ??? because she lived in a glass house and couldn't handle criticism - but she ALWAYS planned to go negative in the general election (and blame the republicans for doing so) - she just wanted to be untouchable during her inevitability campaign - but they underestimated obama, so HilLIARy is going negative sooner than expected - double standard !!!! (what she really menat was , "as long as I'm the frontrunner, let's none of us go negative") just like "let's not count the florida / michigan delegates" - that is until she needs them


hilLIARy - always a major part of the negative politics and gridlock of the past two decades - she never wasn't - in fact, she was chief initiator/instigator as much as anybody - just listen to her - accusing obama of rove tactics - it's worse than the pot calling the kettle black for two reasons A) she's worse than rove and B) she lies about it


This is too funny Hillary reminds me so so much of britney spears in which both have multiple personalities. Hillary Spears is acting like a little 5yr old when she doesn't get waht she wants.


Now who do you think will make a difference?? Ralph "0.3%" Nader, or Ron "9%" Paul??


Posted by: BobinATL | February 25, 2008 12:13 PM

I REALLY LIKE Ron Paul now.

Obama for president 2008!!!


Obama is terrible as a speaker.If you will notice he is slow in his speaking and looks closely at his notes.No wonder he uses others words.He can't give a speach in his own words and keep his eyes for very long off of his notes.If it wasn't for other people's words or his notes he wouldn't have anything to say.Hillary is right on track that he has no substance.It'll be a big
mistake if he ends up being
President.Wake up people.If
he gets it we are in trouble.I'm voting for the smart lady,Hillary who is a better speaker,has more experience,is smarter,has
substance,is a better leader,is better at voicing
the issues.You go Hillary !


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "z" in the field below: