How Clinton camp justifies Obama VP but not CinC: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted March 9, 2008 2:21 PM
The Swamp

by Mike Dorning

Does Hillary Clinton believe Barack Obama is good enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still a second-rate choice for commander-in-chief?

As Clinton’s campaign simultaneously questions Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief and enthusiastically promotes him as a vice-presidential choice should she win the nomination, a Clinton surrogate this morning made the unusual argument that Obama is “qualified” to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still falls far short of Clinton’s readiness for the job.

Tim Russert, moderator for “Meet the Press,” bored in on the seeming inconsistency in questioning Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, a surrogate who appeared on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

While the Clinton campaign’s recent rhetoric suggests that Obama may not meet the standard of readiness voters would expect in a commander-in-chief, Rendell argued that Obama is in fact “ready” for the job.

Still, according to Rendell, his candidate’s "dream" vice-presidential pick is “not nearly as ready as Hillary Clinton is, there's no question about that.”

Here is the exchange:

RUSSERT: Would--do you think that Barack Obama would be acceptable as vice president?

RENDELL: Acceptable? I think it would be a dream to Democrats all over this country. Personally, for me, it would be a great ticket. I mean, I'm going to fight hard for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, whoever the candidate is. But put them together and I think it would give America a rare opportunity to experience something just incredibly wonderful.

RUSSERT: So, if you believe he's acceptable as vice president, one heartbeat away from the presidency, you believe that Barack Obama is qualified to be commander in chief.

RENDELL: I think he's qualified. I don't think he's as good a potential commander in chief right now as Hillary Clinton is. But I certainly think he's qualified. And I will work my heart out for him if he's our nominee, just as I know Tom will work his heart out for Senator Clinton if she's our nominee.

RUSSERT: It--that seems to be in conflict with some things that you have said and what Hillary Clinton has said. On Wednesday you sent out a statement from the Clinton campaign that says, "We want a president who's ready, not one we hope will one day be ready," suggesting Barack Obama is not ready. Hillary Clinton said this on Monday. Let's listen.

(Videotape)

CLINTON: I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

(End videotape)

RUSSERT: And she went on to offer these observations about a threshold for commander in chief. Let's listen.

(Videotape, Thursday)

CLINTON: I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold, and I believe that I've done that. Certainly Senator McCain has done that. And, and you'll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

(End videotape)

RUSSERT: So, Governor Rendell, if Barack Obama's qualified to be vice president, he has crossed the commander in chief threshold. Correct?

RENDELL: Well, I, I think he's ready. He's not nearly as ready as Hillary Clinton is, there's no question about that. But, look, make no mistake about it, he's a talented, dynamic politician and, and a, and a good senator, and I think he would make a fine president. Again, is he as experienced and as ready as Hillary Clinton? Nobody is. Tim, I've been talking to Democratic candidates since 1980, and Hillary Clinton is the best-prepared candidate I've ever talked to. Far better prepared than Bill Clinton was in 1992.

RUSSERT: But if, in fact, there's a possibility Obama may be the Democratic nominee, would it be better, in the interest of the Democratic Party, that the Clintons not suggest that he hasn't passed the threshold to be commander in chief?

RENDELL: Well, sure. Look, there, there's rhetoric in a campaign on all, on all sides, and I, I think the, the issue should be framed as ready compared to Hillary Clinton. And, and that's the way I would frame the issue going forward. To me, there's no contest. I don't think--it's not Barack Obama's fault. I think almost any of the other candidates would have fallen into the same category, ready but not as ready as Hillary Clinton.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Kudos to Tim Russert. Hillary will say anything to get elected, even fratricide a fellow Dem. Shame on them. That's why we need real change... civility in our politicians.


WHEN will Hillary stop endorsing McCain? No Republican would ever be desperate or stupid enough to endorse a Democrat under similar circumstances. With foolish and cut-throat candidates like Hillary, the Democratic Party doesn't need enemies.


Tim Russert is the master at trying to trap people in a corner. He's gone completely feral during this democratic primary, however never uttered a worthwhile word when interviewing the Bushies. Another thing that frustrates is thae fact that it's the BLACK POPULATION that is RACIST. I am black and if I just vote a person because they are black, that makes me a RACIST. Luckily i am not one and I vote for who is best candidate, HRC.

But as always the media is horribly skewed and cares nothing about the American people and TRUTH.


It seems to me that the monster statement about HRC is absolutely correct and also her whole staff and prominet supporters including Bill Clinton are schiezophraniers.( Multiple personalities)


At this point, it will be impossible for Clinton to take the lead in pledged delegatres no matter what happens with Michgan and Florida. No matter how you slice it, Obama will have the most pledged delegates at the convention, and the Super Delegates aren't about to overturn the pledged delegate results. The Super Delegates are also smart enough to understand that Obama has long coattails, and Clinton doesn't. At this point it's all about the "down the ballot" races. Having Obama at the top of the ticket would increase the Democratic majorities in the house and senate. Looking at it from a practical perspective, 43% of all voters in the United States have an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton. There's no way that Hillary Clinton, starting with such high negatives, would help Democratic candidates. With her incredibly high negatives, Hillary is destined to lose the National race. She knows that. That's why she is desparately pleading for Democrats to send Obama to the back of the bus (even though he'll have the most pledged delegates) as her Vice-President--that's the only way she could win. But there's no logical reason to do that. Many "Recovering Republicans" like me, and independents, intend to vote for Obama in the General Election, but would NOT vote for a CLINTON/OBAMA ticket. The best hope that the Democratic Party has to win the Presidency in 2008 is NOT to send Obama to the back of the bus; it's to throw Clinton under the bus!


As a Pennsyvanian, Ed Rendell doesn't play with a full deck, and I am not sure how we have him running our state government. Complete idiot.


Stay tuned for the thread..
HOW OBAMA JUSTIFIES CLINTON VP


This is a fine example of how we should NOT listen to any pundits or staff members who are spinning the facts. We need the facts so that voters can make up their own minds whether or not someone will make a good leader of the U.S. Remember what experience gave us: Rumsfeld and Cheney.


Politicians double-talk. In other news water is wet and objects fall to the earth when unsupported.

Still, I'm glad he was called on it.


Clinton is boring !


HOW ARROGANT! HOW TYPICALLY ARROGANT OF CLINTON!


It's amazing that someone (Obama) who is leading the delegate count should be discussed in a secondary role as VP. Hillary Rove Clinton is trying to diminish Obama in every respect, suggesting he even does not belong in the race with her and McCain. Maybe Hillary and McCain could hook up on the Republican side. I will not vote for Hillary if she makes it to the general election. Linking him to Bush after she voted for his war was the last straw.


I think Hillary would make a better president in this time of clean up in the White House. Obama has a lots of feathers, but not enough chicken. Also I think he will kill the Democratic Party if he does not get off of his bandwagon not to want to go on a Clinton-Obama ticket as most of the Clinton people will not vote for him just as the black voters have said they will not vote for Hillary. He should have waited till 2016. To me he reflects too much of the American greed of "I want it now" whether is be money or prestige. I wish the Democratic Party could step in and say enough is enough and control all the forthcoming damage that will be done, let alone all the money that will be spent. Anyway I agree with Rendell, Hillary has been down the road a lot longer and knows where are the bumps in the road are.


Nice work, Tim Russert. Clinton might also want to take note that, in addition to making speeches in 2002, he was also busy fighting for ethics reform and passing the important civil rights legislation mandating videotaping of confessions.


Senator Obama has had a lifetime of experience too. His best qualifies him as commander-in-chief. First Senator Clinton said her vote for Iraq was her best one. Next she told Code Pink and Iraqi ladies "I gave the matter careful study". Next she says, "we acted on faulty intelligence", not taking responsibility for her own vote. Then she switches up, saying: This is George Bush's war...this has always been George Bush's war, telling us she is incapable of standing up to GWB and saying: No. What did he do to force her to vote yes?


Obama will NEVER be Hillarys VP. These are just SOME of the reasons why:


Lesson one: A thief must never call the police to investigate anything.


Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggests that Senator Barack Obama is somehow corrupt because one of his former political donors, Chicago realtor, Tony Rezko is under trial for corruption.


To begin with, one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s past donors Norman Hsu, who gave her $850,000 was a corrupt embezzler who tried to flee and even attempted suicide in the midst of his own corruption trial last year.


Desperate, after Senator Obama had won 11 states in a row and built his insurmountable delegates count which now stands at 150, Senator Clinton decided to focus on sliming Obama. Now nothing is out of bounds.


Many people believe the name “Clinton” is synonymous with “Corruption.” A google search of “Clintons” and “scandal” yields 10,200,000 hits. A search of “Obamas” and “scandal” yields 1,570,000 hits.


The Clinton’s should be the last people to talk about corruption, scandals, and integrity. They are one of the most immoral, amoral, and perhaps corrupt political couples in history. While Senator Obama won’t bring up the issue, even after the Clintons continue “throwing the kitchen sink” at him, some politicians and major newspaper columnists are now beginning to raise questions.


This is what respected Obama supporter and former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley told PBS’s “Newshour,” this past Wednesday: "I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed. These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain."


The Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, also writes that Hillary Clinton is “the most divisive figure in the country” and adds that people “have reason to view her as dark, dissembling, thuggish.” She also wonders: “Why aren’t we talking about impeachment, Whitewater and Osama?”


Noonan is obviously referring to the impeachment of Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, who was too busy molesting the intern Monica Lewinsky with a cigar when the red phone was ringing; and she is asking about the Whitewater land deal scandal that also involved the Clintons; and, finally she refers to the fact that commander in chief Bill Clinton waffled when he was provided intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, allowing him to escape.


Senator Clinton says she’s experienced having learned from her husband’s administration. That should be an excellent reason why she shouldn’t pick up the red phone at 3 AM.


What does all this have to do with the current presidential campaign? That’s the question senator Clinton should have done before she launched the “kitchen sink” attacks rather than sticking with the campaign issues.


Lesson two: If you have dirty underwear never call for underwear inspections.


The problem here is that Hillary Clinton is engaged in destructive, anything to get me in the White House politics. Consequently, she does not deserve to be there, especially when she has in essence endorsed McCain. Perhaps she could run as his VP.


This is really good reporting. This exchange should be in all the Pennsylvania newspapers and on the National Networks. Rendell is unbelievable. Give me a break; Obama is ready, but not near as ready as Hilary-what kind of double talk trash is that. Words are meaningless when they can't be backed up. He can't say how she is better prepared, but she is. Rendell should go on Saturday Nite with Clinton, they are both big mouth comedians.


HRC needs to get rid of 'Maggie Williams' who is a scandalous and corrupt hussy. She is a hussy who left the US for France because she was afraid of a subpoena from Congress, and she wind-up racking up 350,000 USD in legal bills. HRC really picks them well!


As a Pennsylvanian , I am ashamed of Rendell's irrational almost racist stance, and am now regretful for giving him my vote.

Obama represents the heart and soul of America today, and the governor did not even give him a chance to voice his message.
Shame on you Rendell,
Shame on you Rendell


This is very silly... and it shows how self centered this whole thing is.If you think somebody is ready be your vice then you are saying if something happened to you, he/she would be qualified to take over, including to be commander in chief.Selective admission will not work.


The double ticket issue was answered in the next to the last debate that Clinton insisted upon having. They were both asked and they both said: NO. Did she and Bill and the press forget? She seems to forget a lot of what she has said and makes me dizzy with her double talk.

Senator Obama, I believe is aware of something Rendell and the Clintons are not: I am not a Democrat. I did not register to vote in the Democrat party for Clinton. I studied candidates~she was never on my list: Iraq.

Should she be on the ticket even as VP under Obama, I will vote Cynthia McKinney in November. I am not alone in being an Obama supporter that will never vote for known corruption of the Clintons.


Hillary has based a good part of her campaign on the notion of her experience. But have you seen this ad showing her authorizing the Iraq War? It’s pretty powerful stuff:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs


The dirty-little-secret is that the old Democratic Party establishment (the DLC types) has had its own version of the “southern strategy”. In their case it was not geographically defined. Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania let the cat out the other day, when he suggested that poor rural whites (my rendition) would not vote for Senator Obama because of his color. Whether they would or would not is probably too general and gross stereotyping not worth dwelling on. But, that the party elders are versed in this kind of wedge advocacy on behalf of the Clintons is problematic. The Clinton campaign has not failed to oblige either. The argument they are forwarding suggesting that she should get the nomination despite the popular will because she can win in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania is a not so veiled evocation of this strategy.
So now we are being asked by the Clintons and some of their Democratic Party elders to ignore the wishes and desires of their most ardent historical supporters, African Americans and ignore the popular will, and forward a candidate that appeals to their presumably racist swing voters!
For the record: 1) I don’t believe Gov. Dean is part of the old guard, 2) I don’t believe that the majority of working class whites are what they are being portrayed to be, 3) Senator Obama will get the nomination, if nothing else, I don’t think the Democrats want to risk a Fall of demonstrations and picketing leading to the fulfillment of their own prophecy.

Correction of a misnomer: A ~150 delegate lead in a system that allocates by proportional representation is no narrow margin. The corollary: if it was narrow, she would easily overcome it. Then again, the journalistic body is mostly (with some exception) made of the sector of the student body that is particularly weak in math and not consciousness of doing homework. They would rather repackage campaign propaganda than do their own analyses.


Well done, Mr. Russert. Hillary has long past the point of ridiculous in her HUNGER-blinded quest for power.


Another reason Obama will never be a Clinton VP:

Labor Day Weekend 2007 — In the dead of night during a hot Virginia summer, an unknown intruder silently hoisted himself through a downstairs window into a rural home. As the unsuspecting homeowner slept upstairs, the burglar carried out his mission. The next morning, Kathleen Willey awoke to find her jewelry untouched, her credit cards intact, and her electronics disturbed but not stolen. A copy of the manuscript of her upcoming book—a book containing damaging revelations about Bill and Hillary Clinton—had mysteriously disappeared.

For Willey, the manuscript theft was déjà vu. Ten years earlier, the former White House aide‘s life had been turned upside down by threats aimed at silencing her about the sexual assault she experienced at the hands of President Bill Clinton. The Clintons’ fears about Willey speaking publicly were heightened by what she knew of their shady political operations. Now, with Hillary Clinton in the midst of a campaign to return to the Oval Office—this time as president of the United States—Willey has decided to break the silence she maintained for ten years. And, as a result, Willey finds herself once again a target.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic activist Kathleen Willey helped send Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House in 1992. Little did she imagine how the Clintons would repay her.

While serving as a volunteer in the White House and facing financial hard times, Willey met with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office to request a paying position. Instead of offering assistance, the man she considered a friend sexually assaulted her. Distraught, Willey fled Clinton's presence, only to discover that her husband Ed had committed suicide that same tragic afternoon.

Yet that was only the beginning of Willey's torment at the hands of the Clintons. When her name later surfaced as a potential witness in litigation involving the president, Willey found herself on the receiving end of a Mob-style campaign of threats and intimidation. The unmistakable message? Keep silent, if you know what's good for you. The perpetrator? Willey concluded that it had to be none other than Hillary Clinton herself!

Now, with Hillary seeking a return to the White House, this time as president, Kathleen Willey has broken her decade-long silence in order to tell America the shocking full story. In the pages of Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Willey reveals for the first time:

The possible identity of the mysterious jogger sent to threaten her, and his Clinton connection;
Information about shady financial dealings involving the Clintons and her late husband, and
Evidence that Hillary Clinton orchestrated the campaign of terror against her.
Blow-by-blow and in vivid detail, Target details Willey's ordeal at the hands of the nation's most ruthless political tag team.

Faced with the prospect of another Clinton presidency, Willey has opted not to back down. Instead, she is sharing her story to make voters aware of exactly what they'll be getting should they decide to return the Clintons to the White House.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Willey takes readers on a whirlwind tour of the events that propelled her into the Clinton impeachment vortex. Bill Clinton’s star turn in Willey’s life began with sexual harassment in the Oval Office but soon turned to pure harassment. And it’s Hillary—the woman who would be president—who’s at the center of the forces attacking Kathleen for telling the truth about the president’s rapacious sexual appetite. This is an important read.”
—Ann Coulter, author of five New York Times bestsellers, including Godless, Treason, and Slander

“The White House under Bill and Hillary Clinton was a moral and political slum, where a decent woman could be molested in the Oval Office and defamed and harassed when she complained. It’s shocking to think that the crooked partnership could ever be allowed back into our Executive Mansion and Kathleen Willey has done a great service by reminding us so vividly of what it was like last time.”
—Christopher Hitchens, author of No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family

“After President Bill Clinton sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey in the Oval Office, the Clinton machine went into overdrive, unleashing both a smear campaign and terror tactics to try to silence her. With honesty and courage, Willey recounts both what Clinton did to her that day—and what Hillary and the Clintonistas did to her afterwards.”
—Melanie Morgan, host, KSFO Radio, and co-author of American Mourning


This is NONSENSE..I hope Obama never descend that low...accepting to be HRC's VP. he has a whole lot more to offer America. He will kill all his chances of doing anything to attain that goal.GO BARACK...


"I think Hillary would make a better president in this time of clean up in the White House" from Ann Knapp

Um, she is the clean up Obama promises to get rid of in DC on behalf of we, the people who are tired of crooks and liars.

As one Marine Iraqi war vet said: for every 2 or 3 enemy we kill we wake up 10 or 12 more. Bill's air strikes in no fly zone was most likely waking up some terrorists. Those dead children, gratis our cluster bombs in civilian areas, were not my enemy, but they have created a powerful hatred of the USA as has the tortures and other stuff. Hillary is seen as Bush. She will bring more hatred to the us and put us in more danger.


We see what Hillary is doing -
She'll kindly give Barack Obama the back of the bus.

She's certainly fitting right in to the "monster" label.


I think it's only a tactical play to win over hesitant Obama supporters. Essentially what she's saying is: fine, you like him, I will make him my vp. But, I am sure that if she gets the nomination, she will not, then at the time, pick him as a vp. The other thing that it will serve her is that if Obama gets the nomination, she will in fact without doing anything leave it out there that she once made it known she would take him as a vp but he would not return the favor, and so put him in a negative light.

But on the other hand, to many who are supporting Obama, I think they may feel that it's as demeaning to Obama as anything else that has been thrown at him that he's second class to her. This is especially bad when she is giving such impression in a time which it's too early to talk vp stuff. This may turn some Obama independents off away from Clinton.


"Luckily i am not one and I vote for who is best candidate, HRC.

But as always the media is horribly skewed and cares nothing about the American people and TRUTH." Posted by: Ally Washington

I agree with the first part of your comment. White people that vote for white people are not called bigots or accused of voting for candidates because they are white. Just another way to disrespect our African/American citizens.

The Clintons play that race card well. Your last sentence upsets me. Those of us who know truth would never vote for Clintons. She sinks to no low, has lied since day one of the campaign to discredit Senator Obama rather than try to sell herself on her merits.

The truth is she overstates her 35 year experience. She overstates just about everything. The Clintons have a long string of scandals behind them. The Peter Paul civil suit is scheduled to begin in October. Hillary will be required to testify. Truth is Bill was disbarred for lying under oath to the Grand Jury. Truth is Hillary forgot to mention her conflict of interest via Bill with Dubai when she cited Neil Bush as being GWB's conflict in the east coast port deals.

There is nothing truthful about the Clintons. Sad that you do not see that. Especially being African/American you should pick up on her real nature. Senator Obama is a man, not the 'naughty boy' she thinks she has a right to scold.


Wasn't Rendell quoted as saying that there are parts of his state that would not vote for a black candidate? Pretty sad coming from the mouth of a Governor


Obama used Republican tactics to scare people away from universal healthcare. His aggressive advertisements said "Hillary [and implicitly Edwards too] wants the Government to force people to buy healthcare." Obama has lost vast amounts of credibility, and this shows that he is willing to sell out fundamental rights in order to appeal to right-wingers. This is an attack on the fundamental principle that every citizen should be mandated to have healthcare access. I'm not a huge fan of Clinton or Obama - though I certanly hope the Democrats beat the Republicans. But lets stop making it sound like Clinton is the only sneaky one here. Obama is pretty right-wing (and pretty ruthless) when it suits his own interests. So, to conclude, I hope people wake up and start seeing that Obama (not just Clinton) is selling out to the republican right.


HRC doesn't have much respect for the public, or our intelligence. That may fly with her ill-informed, emotional, naive, deluded followers, but the rest of us can see right through her, especially since she's being so obvious about it. Naked ambition is a common fault in a political animal, but to lack subtlety to such degree is unbecoming in one who claims to be such an old hand. Definitely un-Presidential. I've always found her too unstable as well. Combined with her baggages, she spells disaster. Besides, why bother with this Mc-McCain anyway?


Breaking News!!! Major Political Scandal!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucasus. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican cheating.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your WINNER! They are the best I have ever seen.

You should be angry America. "This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...


Just another Clinton snow job. Do/Say anything.

http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2


So, let's see, from 1988 it's been: Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush- -and now--Clinton-Clinton, just in time for Bush (Jeb) again in 2016. This is the logic we get from people like Rendell. We look like Azerbaijan.


I would be satisfied with either one of these terrific candidates on the same ticket.I do agree that Hillary has more experience as far as dealing with foreign policy and the economy.She also has many years of experience working on trying to get universal healthcare passed.I think Hillary will make a great president and having Obama as her VP will be an unstoppable force.Obama brings energy and charisma to the young voters and Hillary brings out the women and elderly voters.Either way it goes i will be satisfied no matter who is on the top of the ticket.As long as it is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton the GOP will not be able to beat the "dynamic duo".!!!!


"I wish the Democratic Party could step in and say enough is enough and control all the forthcoming damage that will be done, let alone all the money that will be spent."

Dear lord, the poster Ann Knapp above just suggested that the "Democratic" party stop this crazy "democracy" thing and just choose the candidate they like the best for whatever party boss reasons they dream up. Evidently Republicans don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy or insanity.


Will Senator Clinton denounce Governor Rendell for joning Louis Farrakhan, "in challenging residents of Philadelphia and the nation to put aside ethnic differences." despite objections from leading Jewish groups, when he was Mayor in 1997?

Will Senator Clinton also denounce Bill's UAE Sheik business partners because of their ant-Hebrew sentiments, to the point of lobbying our government to help destroy Israel?

Will she denounce Sandra Day O'Connor for using her government position to aid and abet a terrorist group that has operated on our soil for about 100 years? When Ms. Clinton was First Lady I saw no uproar about the then Justice overturning a 50 year ban in Virgina on cross burnings, giving the KKK a green light to step up their terrorism against our African/American citizens.


here's a story i have.

i asked one of my assistants, a young man around 30 years old.

which party will win the election?
- democrats.

but we still don't know who will win the nomination.
- i like both of hillary and barack. but it should be hillary.

why?
- she is much more experience. she's ready.

it seems obarma is good, too.
- he should wait at least 4 years. he doesn't have his own stuff. he borrowed all stuff from others. for example, he got "change" idea from john edwards.

.......

do you guys agree?

for the country, i will vote for john or clinton. the only reason is they have been in service for long time, they have experience. that's it.


Hillary likes to claim co-presidency status.....where was she during this crisis?

"Hillary Clinton, Not So Good on Genocide

By Marc Cooper, Huffington Post. Posted March 8, 2008.

Obama adviser Samantha Power exposed the Clinton administration's indifference to genocide -- she got the boot for stating it on the campaign trail.

The Barack Obama campaign is about to pay a very high price for the inopportune words of one of its most distinguished foreign policy advisors. The dazzlingly brilliant journalist, Pulitzer-prize winning author, and Harvard professor, Samantha Power, has been forced to resign from the campaign after she recklessly told a reporter that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."

In the pungently hypocritical game of American politics, this is just something outside the rules. Whether it's true, or not, matters little. Nor does it matter that the object of Power's derision has just finished spending millions on TV ads implying that Obama would be responsible for the countless deaths of millions of American children sleeping at 3 a.m. Tut, tut. Nothing monstrous about that.

Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book A Problem From Hell which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered. The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team -- from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just let it ring.

And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power's book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an "amoral narcissist."

Former Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the UN forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide, tells us a similar story in his own memoir. General Dallaire recounts how, at the height of the Rwandan holocaust, he got a phone call from a Clinton administration staffer who wanted to know how many Rwandans had already died, how many were refugees and how many were internally displaced. Writes Dallaire: "He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier." Eventually, ten times that many would die. And our response? A handful of years later, at a photo-op stopover in Kigali airport, Bill Clinton bit his lip and said he was sorry.

Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. "I'm getting creamed," Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).

We gave Power the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed."



Wonder how Hillary can claim that she can handle the world leaders and world problems when she could not even controll her husband all their life together?
davis


Oh, get real.

The real scandal is that Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads are now turning up for HRC, and she's claiming to have turned the tide on her own merits.

It is a fact that Obama is attracting a large number of independents AND Obamacans, who are not to be confused with the GOP voters for HRC intent on MISCHIEF, now that McCain is done with his primaries.

It is a fact that they have a vested interest in a protracted Dem contest, and that the Media is raking in serious $$ and has reasons to want it drawn out.

It is a fact that GOP cannot wait to get their shot at the Clintons again. They are smacking their lips, and biding their time, because Hillary will be a stronger rallying point for their voter base than McCain. HRC on the ballot will energize and unify their voters against her.

Perhaps that's why she endorsed McCain over Obama? To appease them? Or perhaps to encourage their turn out FOR her in the primaries. But whichever you cut it, that was pretty dastardly in a so-called Democrat. She isn't fit to carry the Democratic Banner!


It's racist to ASSume Black people are voting for Obama just because he's Black.
There are whole lot of Black people I wouldn't vote for. Al Sharpton got fewer Black votes the Kerry or Edwards.

Senator Cardin who is White and Jewish got more Black votes than Michael Steele in their Senate Race.

Obama just defeated Clinton in Wyoming 61% to 38% and it wasn't because he carried the Black vote.

The media stokes the racist by ignoring race in states that Obama wins that have a small Black population.
But if the Black population is over 20% then media will remind you of that at least 20 times an hour.


The play of Hillary & Bill Clinton to put Barack Obama out of the running for president by "leading us to believe" that he will be HER Vice President is a typical CLINTON anthing goes tactic --- MAYBE WE JUST DO NOT WANT THE CLINTONS AGAIN. Also, Republicans working for Obama are ready to see Barack Obama as President.


Here's an e-mail I sent to Ed Rendell. I would encourage any who are as enraged as I am to contact him, also.

Dear Mr. Rendell,

I am writing in response to seeing you tout the "dream team" ticket to your constituents. As an Obama loyalist, I wish for you to understand that those of us who support Barack Obama don't just support him because of his message, his policies, and his record of experience. We also support him because of his character, integrity, judgment, conscience, and his ability to mobilize folks and cross party-lines to get things done. Those personal qualities that he carries do not extend to Senator Clinton. For that reason, as well as many others that have to do with Senator Clinton's troubled past and her despicable campaign tactics, I hope you will understand that Obama supporters would not support Senator Clinton in any capacity. We would not tolerate her as a running-mate, and we certainly do not appreciate the fact that Bill Clinton, yourself, Clinton surrogates, and others in the media are attempting to get folks in PA and elsewhere to believe that a vote for Senator Clinton = a vote for Senator Obama as VP.

The idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket is ludicrous as is the mere mention of it. Senator Obama is ahead in states won, pledged delegates, and the popular vote. He is also ahead in donations, getting new people into the political process, and getting folks to cross-over to vote for him. He is running the best campaign, and from what I can tell, most intelligent, sound, and seamless campaign ever seen in modern-day politics. It is no mystery what the Clintons are attempting to do by speaking of a joint, two-for-the-price-of-one ticket. It's nothing more than a political trick and Obama supporters are calling their bluff.

You, yourself, said that if Senator Clinton did not win both Texas and Ohio, she'd be out of the race. The media has done well to obscure the fact--by creating a parallel world of reality--that Senator Clinton did NOT win Texas. Barack Obama currently has more delegates in Texas and since we all know it is delegates that matter here, Barack Obama won Texas. However, despite weeks of chatter about the "Texas two-step," the media and others have only reported on the "Texas one-step"--that which Senator Clinton won. You have all forgot to add that second step . . . the caucus, which put Barack Obama over the top. So, given the fact that Senator Clinton is now running on the illusion of momentum, and given the fact that by your own statements about winning both Texas and Ohio, why should anyone suggest that Barack Obama play second-fiddle to someone whom he is besting?

I personally find the floating of the "dream-team" ticket to be deceitful, and wish that you and others would put an end to it immediately. The sentiment is echoed by all other Obama loyalists, also. Should anyone need confirmation of that fact, I would invite you to visit the blogs over at barackobama.com where we speak of this issue quite frequently.

Sincerely,


I do not think that there is a contradiction. One is much more readier than other. Let me put it simple for you. Imagine a passing grade in a grad school a C+, Obama can pass, but we have a A+ Candidate and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary 08 :)
PS: indeed, this question was not tricky.


My whole life I've been a left wing, liberal, loyal democrat, but for the first time in my life I'm faced with the possibility that I might vote for a republic. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'm voting for McCain. Even I disagree with his politics at least he is honest. She is so awful. If she steals the election from Barack it's going to be yet another tragedy in a long line of democratic tragedies.


Please, NO more bushes or clintons in the white house. ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
Lets move in a different direction. Hillary speaks with a forked tougue. She is a typical politition and can not be trusted.
She is running soley on a Feminist platform.
We need more change then women issues alone!
Vote out Hillary NOW...
NO MORE CLINTONS.
VOTE TO MAKE THEM GO AWAY.

Its up to you voters to make the future different.
Don't choose a path, Create ONE.

Thank you for allowing my words.


Clinton - Obama ticket or vice versa will never happen because Obama would never accept the veep position and he doesn't need the liability named Clinton. She need him but he needs her like he needs a hole in the head.


Can you imagine what life as VP would be like under Bill and Hillary? I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, much less Barack Obama. Hillary can't possibly catch up to him in total delegates won during the actual campaign, so she offers him her VP slot. Think she might have an entitlement mentally for the presidency?


I think the Bill Clinton is right. I am one of the few black folks who likes Clinton.

BTW the popular vote was just re-done. Bad news for Obama

Since Hilary's 3 wins the popular vote is now equal. So Obama doesn't have his lead anymore.

So many negative people here. If oboma people are so good why are they so nasty and negative writing here. Thats not what obama preaches.

Clintons have been through the ringer and still came out good. they are battle proven and have always supported black folks, hispanics and whites.

I think the blacks turning there backs on a unknown person just because of skin color is raciest. You are being raciest against a white person and thats just as bad as being raciest against a black.

Most black people arnt even black they have european blood in them. So its based on skin color not experience and who supported them in the past.

I fell Clinton will do more for blacks than Obama. I have a lot of black friends and I dont think of them as black and white just think of there character.

I would always put Clinton first its logical and makes much more sense if you want the country to do well.


There go the Obamaites again. Even a VP slot for Obama is a credit to him. 8 years in the VP slot will strengthen his credentials and experience. What's Obama's big hurry to be President? Does he know something we, the people, don't know?


Tim, thank you for very keen observation. Yes, VP candidate should be ready to take over Commandar in Chief position in an unfortunate event of the loss of the president. It has already happened in our history. Assasination attempts are not exclusively targetted to black leaders. True MLK was black but JFK was white. Also you never know when a person's time is up. Cancer, heart attack and traffic accident, you name it. If Hilary thinks Obama is ready for VP but not for Commandar in chief, she is kidding herself or just saying anything to get elected. Hilary, be honest!


Shame on Hillary Clinton for endorsing the Republican candidate and putting her fellow Democrat down as she has. This is unprecedented! Shame on her! And then suggesting that Obama would even want to be on the same ticket. For her, he's good enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but only a speech in 2002! Desperate, shallow, mean-spirited baloney! I can't believe I'm even considering voting for McCain if she becomes the Democratic candidate, or not vote at all for President. I'm a lifelong Democrat and Clinton is stooping too low. I believe she will lose, if she's up against McCain in November, and for good reason. She is alienating many Democrats and Independents with her tactics. Our military and the American and Iraqi people will all lose with another 100 years of Bush's war, and all that that implies.


This whole "Obama as VP" thing is absolutely ridiculous. Obama leads in the popular vote, he leads in pledged delegates and he leads in states won. How dare she even suggest that she should be at the top of the ticket. Shame on her! Obama has massive crossover appeal and has proven to bring young voters to the polls. Obama doesn't need Hillary, she needs him... desperately!

She should really drop out now and quit being an annoyance.


The Clintons are lying snakes who will do and say anything to get elected. How many times has Hillary lied in this campaign.

She is deceitful and evil. If superdelegates aiienate Obama voters by overturning the results they will lose the White House for a generation.


The fact that there are so many "recovering" Republicans willing to support BO but not HRC makes me more reluctant to support him. All we need now is for a drunk Bush or Cheney to utter Gobama and it will be crystal clear.


As the most divisive and arguably most corrupt politician in America, Hillary is using lies and surrogates (like jacksmith) to try to weasle into the presidency. I cannot imagine a worse person to represent women and our country. Obama, don't let Hillary drag you down. And no, Hillary could never beat McCain.


wow!!!desperate Hillary Clinton,if you are reaaly that desperate for power,then you are in shit.deep deep shit.How dare you assign the VP to someone who has more delegates and more popular voters than you? Dont play with the intelligence of Americans.We know you as a very divisive figure and we are really going to avoid you .Am in Pennyslavania and believe you me ,you and your backers are doomed.Penny is for OBAMA---THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.OBAMA.


What kind of answer was Obama's if not truly insightly as to his motives being about obtaining power when asked recently about accepting the Vice Presidency and his response being that he doesn't see himself as being the Vice President only the President. Shouldn't someone who is tooting the banner of "change for the people" response have been more along the lines... I would serve the people in any capacity deemed available to bring about immediate, effective and life saving change that the American public is in desparate need of.. Not, I want to be President or nothing else. To me his response reeked of ego!and it seems he's only there for the betterment and glory of himself.


You, my friend Jack, are an absolute idiot. I am a cross-over Republican voting for Obama. I certainly did not cross over because I thought he would be beaten. I crossed over because he is a decent, intelligent, qualified person that will reinstate respect for us globally. If Hillary gets on the ticket, I'm voting for McCain.


jacksmith: are you insane!!, you are just the type that the clinton's love, unstable, spewing garbage out of your mouth, national surveys show that clinton does'nt stand a chance in h--l to beat McCain, the truth will come out about her and her husband in a national election, that is why they would even suggest a clinton obama ticket, they can't win it with out him, but he can win it with out her, I'm a republican that is tired of GWB, and his type, John McCain, I'm crossing over and voting for a change, fresh air, no track record, tied to no special interest, and for those of you that think that she is more qualified to be commander in chief, by what ends? she has made no decisions on national security except to send us to Iraq, WRONG CHOICE!! and all the supposed generals that are backing her, they owe Bill favors, and most supported the war, this crap needs to end, the same ol sh-t needs to be eliminated, new leadership BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!!!


Jacksmith,

Thank you reminding me of the difference between Obama supporters and Billary Supports. And why Obama wins the "educated" vote in every state.


The democratic party has several big problems. The issue about MI and FL does not have a really good solution that won't hurt either the voters or either of the candidates. If they refuse to knowledge those votes they will risk losing their vote in the general election. I know I would be mad enough to vote the other party just as many people did this past 2006 election when they gave notice to the republicans by voting many out. I think HC has the right to make issue about her record of experience compared to Barack. He is very short on experience, with HC edging him out. However both have never served in the military and personally that is a deal breaker for me. When my husband was being considered for a top job(president) for a large corporation there were over 200 qualified applicants with extensive manufacturing and managerial experience that were being considered. They all had 20+ years of experience. There was not one applicant that was seriously considered based on his/her potential abilities that didn't have a resume stuffed with real honest accomplishments. Judging from the many naive comments that Barack has made during this campaign cycle, I can see why HC feels he is not currently prepared to be Commander and Chief.


Interesting theory jacksmith - hmmm with all the conspiracy theorists out there, this is the 1st I've heard of this one. When were the Repubs doing this? Did they send out secret signals to each other? Hmmm. Did they forget to go vote in Texas/Ohio/Rhode Island? Is Elvis giving Clinton attack advice?

Take your meds. Leave the computer for a while and get out of the house (trust me, no one is following you). Enjoy some fresh air, and get in touch with reality. You'll feel much better.


Jacksmith,

Just read it again... Even better the second time! Thanks for the giggle! Fantastic!


"Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage ..."

The Clintons INVENTED fraudulent outrage.


HOW DARE THJE OPBAMA PEOPLE CALL ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS HILLARY SCHIZOPHRENICS....WE AT LEAST ARE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE NOT SOMEONE THAT MAKES EMPTY SPEECHES AND WINS IN CAUCUSES IN RED STATES...HEY!!!! WE ARE NOT GOIING TO WIN THOSE STATES IN A GENERAL ELECTION...GUESS WHAT...THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE CAUCUSES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. WAKE UP PEOPLE..DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR FIGHT EACH OTHER! HILLARY 08!!!!


Clinton is in second place. That's the Vice President' position.

Any other suggestion is misleading!


What the Clinton campaign is doing is insulting to Obama and his supporters. Obama has a substantial lead in the delegate count, has more popular votes, has won twice as many states as Hillary, and has almost unlimited fund-raising power. These advantages will not change even after the upcoming elections.

If Obama is quiet about the Clintons' message, they would want to fool voters that "vote for her and get him for free." If Obama rejects her message, she will say that "Obama is not a uniter."

The Clintons are as low to do this. Shameless, indeed!


CLINTON-OBAMA TICKET? NO WAY! REASON: STAFF PEOPLE OF BOTH CAMPS DISDAIN EACH OTHER. BETTER FOR MADAME PRES. HILLARY TO GET SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS AS HER
RUNNING MATE.
NOW, WHAT ABOUT SEN. OBAMA?
GIVE HIM A CABINET PORTFOLIO, OR MAKE HIM AN
AMBASSADOR. HE CAN HAVE HIS CHOICE.


HRC will say anything, do anything, hurt anyone, to win. She should be asking John McCain if she could be his VP. HRC and Barack are on the same team (Democratic Party). Two quarterbacks vying for the starting position - President of US. HRC, shoudl act as such. Stop being so negative toward your team mate. HRC is very close to harming to party where we will lose the general election. My guess is that if she can't win, Barack Obama won't either.


I am appalled by the tactics the Clinton's (BILL & HILLARY) are saying about Obama. There was a time when I thought I could vote for Hillary just based on what her husband had done for our coun try when he was in office. However, I see them both as trying to bring turmoil between the African-American community. If Obama stays on course with this campaign and gets the popular vote and is denied the nomination this country could very well go back to the 60's with rioting/killing in the streets! Are you willing to take that chance?


Uh, excuse me jacksmith. A large number of Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas because Rush Limbaugh told them to and they know she will be the weaker candidate. Stop spreading lies.


Obama has been playing every underhanded trick since day one. First wronfully calling the Clintons racist and thereby scaring off the press from scrutiny. Then the phony statements that Obama does not whine and is running a clean race. Give me a break.

Seems to me Obama said he does not want to be VP. I agree, his place on her ticket would leave her open to being pulled down by him. Obama should return to the Senate and prove himself.

Obama & The Upscale Vote; The Clinton "Death Squad" Smear vs. Rezko

I keep wondering why obama supposedly get's the upscale votes, when I am educated, and I am part of this group. I hate to say it but I feel, after much consideration it's because A) Sexism; B) Obama admitted to doing drugs C) Obama stretches the truth D) Obama is a talented game player and strategist.

These may be traits shared by many "succesful people" in todays world, but I do not feel that is the "change" we really want and need.

Though Obama, claims he is only now "taking off the boxing gloves" he's had them off since day one. One of his "best" strategies was wrongfully accusing the Clintons of racism, which sent terror and shivers down the spines of the press. Hillary has respected Obama, because he is another Democrat, and no one in the national media is talking about the Rezko scandal, but MCain surely will.

Obama has milked the issue of Iraq -- I wasn't there to vote, and even though I have supported the war since I entered the Senate -- Hillary voted for the war and I didn't. Obama uses the rules of "Advertising and Marketing" very effectively. One advertising trick is that if someone is told something at least 8x's they will start to believe it. Obama's themes are getting old, and people are waking up from his doom and gloom messages, which end on the high note, that have no fear Obama is here.

Obama may continue to win States where the Black population is large -- and voting in a block -- but when it comes to the general election, the themes that have seemed impressive about Obama will have lost their luster and Obama will be seen for who he is -- No different than the Status Quo, he is a hawk, with a brilliant press agent, and a scandalous relationship with a fundraiser for his campaign who is on trial and also fund raiser for President Bush.

I s that change we can believe in? I think not. People have woken up and people are more impressed with Hillary than ever before for the strenth and grace under fire that she has shown in this race.

Hillary can face McCain and win. They are both experienced and highly respected. Obama is falling flat and I feel he should return to the Senate and prove in real deads and accomplishments that he has the experience, patience. good judgment and ability to be President of the USA. This is not a football game or the lottery, and McCain will pull no punches with Obama.

The latest Obama Campaign driven Hillary Clinton Smear is that the Clintons are a “Death Quad”. At 46, Obama is not really a youngster but many of the Parrots singing his tunes on the web are. Really, Give me a break. When is the press going to call Obama out on all this BS. Give me a break. This “hit squad thing” is being advanced all over yahoo, and it’s Obama’s way of getting national media attention away from the real scandal, which is not going away anytime soon which is his close connection with Rezko.

Many of these young Obama supporters have never believed in anything, and don’t know anything about the Clintons so in their minds Bill Clinton never did anything to help the USA economy (I like to remember he took over the biggest deficit in history at that time, and left office with a surplus for Bush, jr. to inherit and squander); they say the only thing Hillary has ever done is be Bill Clinton’s Wife (Forget her 8 years in the Senate Obama didn’t mention that in his playbook that they follow); and that Hillary is just a lier. The sad part is Obama has them believing this because they don’t know what the reality is.

I hope the press will start to really scrutinize all this, and that Democrats elect Hillary. Obama will never defeat McCain, and I have faith that Hillary will deliver the changes Americans want and deserve.


Hussein Obama is like Hitler. He lies and appeals to the stupid masses. It would be a disgrace to our country to have him even near the white house.


Clintons' dream ticket is America's nightmare ticket.

We don't want a Clinton anywhere near the White House.


She is a monster


To Jacksmith - You need to check your "facts". Nothing in your posting is correct and you know it. Please don't take all of the other posters or readers of this message board to be so naive or stupid that they will automatically believe the garbage you just wrote. It is not accurate one little bit and the true facts are so easy to locate. Give it up. You are wasting our time using distorted and untrue statements.

And Alyce Rocco, kudos to you for mentioning the Peter Paul lawsuit. Anyone reading these posts would be well advised to read about this lawsuit (just Google it) and check out the two Peter Paul videos on YouTube, that make it clear as to what both of the Clintons have been involved in and then lie about.


Re: Ready but Not Ready

Rendell, a good man, must navigate his way between the shoals of Clinton tactics.


From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win and Win Strong

I am aware of the delegate math.

I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.

However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on a strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (after all, someone has to do it), and place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: A box where any attack will immediately be associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: in a moment of crisis, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments" (thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain, and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html


As a lifelong Democratic Party member, I would never vote for Senator Clinton, with or without Senator Obama on the ticket.


I think it's only a tactical play to win over hesitant Obama supporters. Essentially what she's saying is: fine, you like him, I will make him my vp. But, I am sure that if she gets the nomination, she will not, then at the time, pick him as a vp. The other thing that it will serve her is that if Obama gets the nomination, she will in fact without doing anything leave it out there that she once made it known she would take him as a vp but he would not return the favor, and so put him in a negative light.

But on the other hand, to many who are supporting Obama, I think they may feel that it's as demeaning to Obama as anything else that has been thrown at him that he's second class to her. This is especially bad when she is giving such impression in a time which it's too early to talk vp stuff. This may turn some Obama independents off away from Clinton.


.....Another thing that frustrates is thae fact that it's the BLACK POPULATION that is RACIST. I am black and .......

The above comment made by Ally (uncle Ruckus)Washington, is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Especially coming from a person who say they are of African descent.


Who the H--l does she think she is? Obama is ahead. Why would he give it up to take a back seat to her? She is a pompus a-- and so are all the members of her staff some of whom should be ashamed of themselves.


So the candidate is saying the hard-hitting, back-splashing stuff (If you can't vote for me, McCain's your best choice) and the surrogates are trying to play nice and stay positive? Something's backward here....


Ally Washington, I am sick of fellow black people using the race card whenever we don't get what we want. Instead of jumping to the insulting conclusion that we're just voting for the brother like a bunch of lemmings, why don't you give us a little credit? There is obviously an element that has responded to Obama, just because he's black, but why don't you consider the following things about Obama that resonate within the community:
1) He has a history of being a community advocate.
2) He reformed the Illinois criminal justice system, so that police couldn't beat confessions out of suspects.
3) The Clintons are dealing with the backlash of trying to marginalize Obama and choosing offensive surrogates like Bob Johnson.
Answer me this. Are older, white women sexist for voting overwelmingly for Hillary? Probably not. Maybe they just respond to her message. It's a novel concept. Don't be so lazy when analyzing the demographics, Ally.


Hillary, is jacksmith your pen name? You declared this to be a game, why are you backtracking? All games have rules, why are you trying to change the rules? Would you change the rules, contiue to hide information, hire cronies, blow taxpayer funds on 5 star hotels, cry, blame the media and continue to divide the country if you ran the country? No, cuz McCain has you beat at your own game.


Ally Washington, I am sick of fellow black people using the race card whenever we don't get what we want. Instead of jumping to the insulting conclusion that we're just voting for the brother like a bunch of lemmings, why don't you give us a little credit? There is obviously an element that has responded to Obama, just because he's black, but why don't you consider the following things about Obama that resonate within the community:
1) He has a history of being a community advocate.
2) He reformed the Illinois criminal justice system, so that police couldn't beat confessions out of suspects.
3) The Clintons are dealing with the backlash of trying to marginalize Obama and choosing offensive surrogates like Bob Johnson.
Answer me this. Are older, white women sexist for voting overwelmingly for Hillary? Probably not. Maybe they just respond to her message. It's a novel concept. Don't be so lazy when analyzing the demographics, Ally.


Look - here's the truth, from a little lady in New Zealand. Send the Clinton's home, elect Obama. Clinton is the last thing America needs right now, second after another Republican president.

Rinse, lather and repeat. People around the world, from all manner of countries, have spoken very loud and clear - we think Obama will be a great president for the USA. And it has nothing to do with any 'cult of personality' - we can just see, clear as day, that this guy is who you need.

So tell Clinton to back up off him. There is no way she is going to win in November, there is no way that Obama would be her VP, so she is just doing damage by continuing this destructive slash, burn and lie that is her style of politics. Give us a Gore VP to Obama, or at least put him in some kind of strong role for getting the planet's health on track (although his role is very strong already), give Edwards a role too - looking out for the concerns of the workers, and Colin POwell - good man, under the wrong president - I wonder what he could do? And also give us an outstanding woman of good character (i.e. not Clinton) in a prominent role too.

You know, you guys have got it all there, you've got good people to work with who are going to do the right thing by your country and the world. Don't block them and don't let yourself be lied to again. The duplicity of the Clintons should be a very strong warning sign to you all after 8 years of Bush. Don't mess this up - I don't think I can't you guys messing it up again - argghhhhh!


And Jack - would you just go away with your Republican conspiracy theories? That is just more fear mongering to manipulate people - I'm sick of it.


This is for Ally Washington and all the rest of you who level this nonsensical charge at black people.

Someone made a comment about how African Americans are voting for Obama just because he is black. This is a charge that I keep hearing being leveled by the supporters of Hillaryous, and I wanna set the record straight(not that straight matters to the Clintonistas), but here goes.

First of all, when this campaign first began, Barack Obama could not even pry support from the black community with a shotgun. He was the brunt of much criticism for his inability to garner support from blacks. Blacks were supporting Hillaryous 80% to 20%. Blacks didn't even know anything about Obama except that he was black and that didn't make a dimes bit of difference.

It was not until June, after Obama got a chance to campaign and get some face time in the media, that they began to like what they heard and switch to him. Even after that shift, Hillaryous still led in the black community by 60% to 40% because there were too many blacks that were disillusioned with race relations in America and they simply did not believe that America (whites in particular) would ever vote for a black man as president. There was a large number of blacks that polled and cited that although they liked Obama's vision and thought he was qualified, they just didn't believe it was possible in the current racial atmosphere.

Then the Iowa caucuses happened and the overwhelming support of white and other voters dispelled the disillusionment and hope prevailed. As a result another shift of blacks to the Obama camp took place, and for the first time, Obama now led in this community 60% to 40%. And as a side note, isn't it ironic that the state of Iowa made a believer out of many blacks, while Hillaryous and her supporters have done nothing but act completely contrary to what was reflected in Iowa. But hope is hard to kill!

There were still 40% of black Clinton loyalists that remained steadfast in her camp, despite the fact that there was a viable black candidate running. But then, enter South Carolina and the ridiculous antics of Hill and Bill. They so offended the black community, that over half of their remaining support in the black community disapated--not because Barack is black, but because Hill and Bill were offensive and just plain stupid.

So that is how the black vote got to be 85 to 90% strong for Obama. If blacks were just voting on the sole basis of race, they would have been in his camp from day one instead of this evolution from 80% in Hill's camp to Obama's camp.

So quit with this playing of the race card against blacks just becuase they now overwhelmingly support Obama. He earned their support, and he got a little help from Hillaryous and her surogates with all their racist shinanagans.

Also, let me point this out. For all of their political lives, blacks have been voting overwelmingly for white candidates and nobody makes anything of it. Now all of a sudden when they are won over by a black candidate, that overwelming support is said to be racist. Who is zooming who here? It is the proponents of the notion that blacks are being racists that are the real racists because they seem to only be able to stomach the idea of blacks supporting whites or others.

Nonsense!


What HRC's campaign is trying to do now is make voters think that if she is nominated, she will make Obama her VP nominee. This is NOT guaranteed. She is trying to get potential Obama supporters to vote for her with a false promise. Remember, Bill Clinton was just as inexperienced as Obama is, and he did well. If you want HRC in office as president, then vote for her. If you want Obama in office, AS PRESIDENT, then vote for him. Do NOT buy this "Obama as VP" argument from his opponents.


"Hussein Obama is like Hitler."

Uh, yeah.

With any luck, you're not registered to vote.


Hillary misses around 600 delegates do get the nomination. The half of the pledged delegates still to earn are 300. The superdelegates still to convince are 350 (Superdelegates from Michigan and Florida are out). Hillary would need under normal circumstances nearly all the superdelegates which are still left to get the nomination. So she knows there is no way she can get the nomination alone, why not asking for a little help of her friend Obama because she has been so nice lately?


"mark mathews", that name rings a bell. You post so much propoganda on the web. Are you a hired Clintonista or just a brainwashed follower? With regards to the healthcare mailers and the general issue, Obama accurately points out the essential difference between his plan and hers. He has mandates for kids. She has mandates for everyone. Hillary claims that they will determine what's affordable, and that's the problem. There's a difference between a Washington bureaucrat determining what a person can afford vs. the tougher realities that struggling people face (increasing gas and food prices, credit card bills, and other unexpected financial difficulties “rainy days”). Let's end homelessness by forcing people to buy houses.


The Clintons have been a disaster for the Democratic Party since 1993, not just since Hillary started campaigning for McCain.

Remember 1993? New Democratic President with a Democratic Congress . . . poof!!! There goes health care reform. Poof!! There goes the Democratic Congress, in comes Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay and Dick Armey and there goes the rest of the two-term Clinton Administration down the tubes, lubricated with Bill's excretions and ejaculations (I mean his definition of "is").

The Clintons were purely lucky that economy held in bubble mode until the end of their first two terms. Pure luck....

But they have been and will be a disaster for Democrats and progressives.

And Hillary is a bit of a monsterous ego, without shame or limits, without any concerns except her own power.

This latest contorted twist about Obama as VP while not being fit to be President is not the first nor the last time we will be able to see the Clintons for the churlish liars and power grabbers that they are.

Joe


Hillary misses around 600 delegates do get the nomination. The half of the pledged delegates still to earn are 300. The superdelegates still to convince are 350 (Superdelegates from Michigan and Florida are out). Hillary would need under normal circumstances nearly all the superdelegates which are still left to get the nomination. So she knows there is no way she can get the nomination alone, why not asking for a little help of her friend Obama because she has been so nice lately?


jacksmith, most polls show Clinton as the weaker candidate against McCain in a general election, and republicans are well aware of this. Not to mention she has twenty years of dirt & scandal that can be used as fodder against her. Sorry.

mark mathews, Clinton's plan does indeed force individuals to purchase healthcare. Consider this scenario: You work freelance. You made good money last year, but the economy has taken a turn for the worst, and now you're hard pressed just to pay your rent. In this scenario, you can't apply for a hardship exemption or a government subsidy because you made too much money last year. You can't afford to pay for your mandated health care, either. What happens? You get fined & the government attempts to garnish your wages (ruining your already sluggish business by sending letters out to anyone you did business with last year, as reported on last year's tax forms).

That's the problem with an individual mandate on health care. Some people in unusual circumstances get totally screwed. Obama doesn't want that to happen. Hillary doesn't care as long as she gets to claim her plan is "universal."


The only scenario Hillary can offer up is her at the top and Obams as her vice presidential selection. When Obama wins the nomination she is toast. There are no circumstances under which Obama will need Hillary and Bill Clinton for anything.


Hussein Obama for president?
I doubt.

I learned much from reading you guys.

People won't be fooled.


Go Hillary!


Obama will disappoint all of us if he falls for the Clinton Ploy:
First:The Vice President will be number three at best...Maybe Bill will be Number one.
Second it would put Obama out of the next race, he could not run against himself.
Hillary would never, I mean NEVER consult with Obama and would destroy him and our dream of a real change. She would send him to Ireland when the action is in the mideast. Make no mistake Bill Clinton is trying to male an run around the two term limit of the Constitution. Remember George Washington said it was time for a new voice as President when he began the custom of two run maximum. The run will be Hillary in the Oval office and Bill doing what he is known to do when she is busy. He will make the most important decisions.


.....Another thing that frustrates is thae fact that it's the BLACK POPULATION that is RACIST. I am black and .......

The above comment made by Ally (uncle Ruckus)Washington, is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Especially coming from a person who say they are of African descent.


RUSSERT: ... would it be better, in the interest of the Democratic Party, that the Clintons not suggest that he hasn't passed the threshold to be commander in chief?

RENDELL: Well, sure


Thank you Mr. Russert for putting Ed Rendell on the spot. No doubt Clinton & Wolfson will find a more convoluted spin on this, but there is no debating where they have set the "commander-in-chief threshold": right under Barack Obama's feet.


I think Obama is more qualified than Hillary. Be sure to check out www.iamthewitness.com, though.


zack dc, Clinton only has the lead in the popular vote if you count Michigan and Florida. Which is just silly, considering Obama wasn't on the Michigan polls. And why wasn't he on the polls? Because the party requested that candidates remove their names from the ballot. Clinton did not comply. Obama did.


In terms of general election postulating, it strikes me that Obama's big wins in small states is MORE impressive and important for the party's chance in November than Hillary's narrow wins in big states.

In light of recent shenanigans, its impossible to know what would happen in Ohio and Florida with either candidate versus McCain, but Obama looks to have a much better chance of turning red states blue, such as Virginia, Wyoming, Missouri and others. Either Democrat would be nearly assured of winning California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and nearly assured of losing Texas, so I don't see Hillary's wins in these states being as relavent in the general election.

Barack Obama has fared better against John McCain than Hillary Clinton has since the earliest days of the primary campaign.

I pray that Hillary will not rip the party apart and hand the presidency to John McCain in her losing effort to secure the nomination that does not belong to her on account of the plurality of states, votes, and pledged delegate counts which all favor Senator Barack Obama.


Something everyone should know is that Barack Obama has been the victim of a false e-mail "whispering campaign" that he is Muslim and does not say the Pledge of Allegiance. This has been proven false hundreds of times by newsweek, CNN and other reliable news outlets, and can be checked out on snopes.com and various other urban legend fact checking websites.

The Clinton and McCain campaigns have both been party to this slime by saying Obama's not been "vetted", by emphasizing his middle name, Hussein, and by saying that Obama's wife is not patriotic, thereby keeping the idea viable in the minds of susceptible voters. This country is better than that. Our founding documents declare that we must be better than that.

Obama is a committed Christian who speaks openly about accepting Christ into his life, and about the role our individual faiths have in the public domain. He taught Constitutional Law in Chicago, and introduced a bill in Illinois that required high school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. He's literally putting his life on the line to run for President because he loves this country and the promise it holds for Liberty and Justice for All.

I respect the rights of those who choose not to vote for Obama because of his policies, or simply because another candidate appeals more to their personal ideals. But this country deserves to know the truth, and those who would lie about a good person in order to seek office do not deserve the privilege of serving the people of this country.

One of the men on 60 minutes last Sunday said he liked Obama but was not sure about voting for someone with his "background". I wonder how many others have been fooled?

As an Obama volunteer I encountered many voters in Ohio, Wisconsin and Rhode Island who seriously thought Obama is a Muslim. Word of mouth and email blasts, coupled with the innuendo by the Clinton and McCain camps and bolstered by Hannity and Limbaugh, have done a great deal of damage. Even if you support another candidate you must view this kind of lying smear as immoral and harmful to our democracy. It's time to say "enough" to this kind of politics.


Doesn't Hillary's racist comment about sending Barak Obama "to the back of the bus" prove her contempt for him because he has derailed her easy bid for becoming the nominee for President?

Hillary plays "dirty" politics because she feels vulnerable and needs to distract voters from the fact that her inflated resume is really more BS than substance.


Posted By: Northern Neighbor @ 03/09/2008 5:59:03 PM
Comment: This is about Senator Clinton???s continuing advocacy of Senator McCain as Commander In Chief. Post-Texas/Ohio morning, on CNN, and on a number of other occasions, Senator Clinton stated that only TWO of the remaining three candidates for President are fit to be Commander In Chief: Herself and Senator McCAIN, the REPUBLICAN nominee. This is a truly remarkable statement, almost beyond belief, since it implies the following:
1. If Clinton is NOT nominated as the DEMOCRATIC Candidate, then voters should elect McCain as the REPUBLICAN Commander In Chief, and therefore as PRESIDENT. Seems it must be either CLINTON???s way, or the OTHER PARTY???S way. Sounds like either Clinton must be the team???s goalkeeper, or, if she must sit on the bench for this game, she???d prefer that the OPPOSING TEAM win! Difficult to see her devotion to the Democratic Party in this!! Could it be that Senator Clinton is really more important for America than the Democratic Party?!!
2. Clinton is advocating that the troops in Iraq be withdrawn beginning in 60 days, while McCain is advocating that the troops be kept in Iraq indefinitely. So it seems that Clinton is saying it is important to bring the troops home if SHE brings them home, but it would be OK to leave them in Iraq if McCain, her second pick, kept them there. It seems strange that the LIVES of some of the soldiers serving in Iraq should be saved ONLY if Clinton wins. Does she want them brought home badly enough to let a possible President Obama bring them home?
3. By trying so determinedly to belittle the capabilities of Obama as a possible Commander In Chief, Clinton seems to be handing the Presidential debates on a platter to McCain, in the event that Obama should be the Democratic nominee. Is this what she really wants to do? Is this what the Democratic Party would stand for?


When are we going to see a thorough examination of the claims of the red phone phoney?

"Ready on day one. Experienced. Ready to be Commander-in-Chief."

Utterly ridiculous and unsupported by anything factual. Standing in the wings as wife of President. Fringe involvement in various foreign policy committees and in the Irish peace negotiations. voting for a war in Iraq without reading the available and contrary intelligence reports.

Its only now I realize how the Bill Clinton presidency was so much about "spin" rather than substance. And its the Clinton machine that is currently putting the spin on HRC's candidacy. It worked in Ohio. With primary voters interviewed and they repeating the Clinton phrases as reasons for supporting her. The Clintons are showing they will say and promise anything to get back into the White House. A complete sham which needs to be exposed.


Tim Russert is the man.

Clintonites: Ask you candidate about her tax returns since Bill left office. We're waiting to see 2000-2006 (and 2007 on April 15th). When a public official uses their private money to keep their campaign afloat, we the people have a right to know where that money came from. Dubai? China? India?

Google Paul v Clinton.
Google Hillary FALN

These folks have serious baggage.


The only warrior mentality coming from Hilliary, trying to bring down Barack Obama. Let the public view her taxes,and bring out the truth about Whitewater.


The great news is that HRC is not competent to be Obama running mate. She lacks the moral fiber. Maybe she should run on Republican ticket.


>>Breaking News!!! Major Political Scandal!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucasus. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

...

You should be angry America. "This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...>>

This is news? Have you checked out Rush Limbaugh's website and/or broadcasts last week? He's actually telling his legions of Dittoheads to vote for Hillary Clinton. His slogan is: "We're already screwed - Vote Hillary!"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030408/home.guest.html

Please - if you're gonna lie about Obama, please make a convincing effort. And, tell your friends sitting beside you in Hillary's "war room" that Obama's still ahead in delegates, and to have a nice day. :)


Monster she is, monster she remains. The thirst for power at any cost... Shame, Shame. She lost my respect and the little trust I had in her. What did she do when she got that telephone call at 3 am telling her about Bill's latest womanizing runaways? She went back to sleep right!


Tim, you are right. If Hillary Clinton cares a bit about the Democrat Party's interest, she should not suggest Obama is not qualified to be the commander-in-chief and even John McCain would be more qualified. But this is Hillary. All she cares is she has to be the one who wins. That tells a lot about Hillary's character.


Hillary is desperate to get back in the White House and willing to do anything to achieve this, except release her Income Taxes and give details of her foreign policy experience.

We don't need a repeat of scandals the Clintons brought to the White House. I will vote for anyone other than Hilliary Clinton.


Zack in D.C.:
If you are going to be a HRC supporter, at least get your facts straight. Obama leads Clinton by about 600,000 votes in the popular vote. He leads among pledged delegates by about 150 delegates. He leads in contests won with 30 versus HRC's 16.

Clinton isn't ahead in anything, except spinning the facts to enhance her position.


Both Bill and Hillary want the voter base to think that by voting for Hillary they stand a chance to get both Obama and Hillary into the white house. But if they vote for Obama, they probably will not get Hillary. What a sleezy way to cheat the public to get the votes. I wonder which page in the Hillary's copy of the Karl Rowe playbook she pulled this out of.

As for the Obama supporter who called Hillary a monster, she is off the mark by a little bit. Hillary is the devil in all these. Especially when she has that cackle after making fun of Obama. One day Hillary was 'honored' to be sitting next to Obama on the stage, the next day according to her only McCain other than her is ready to be commander in chief. What a spineless weasel she is. Monster is too mild a word to describe her.


Hillary realizes that the only way she gets the nomination is by the super delegates overturning Obama's lead with the pledged delegates. She therefore needs Obama on the ticket to prevent mass defection of his supporters. She is floating this idea of the Clinton-Obama ticket so the establishment/super delegates will buy into this and cut a deal to deliver her the nomination with Obama the VP. Only problem, I doubt Obama will go along particularly with how negative it has become and will probably get even worst. However, this is her only hope of getting both nominated and elected, she really needs Obama.


This is all a ploy to convince 2 groups to vote Clinton:

1. The undecided in the remaining primary states - in other words, they can vote for Clinton and get Obama too

2. The Supers who are on the edge too, as she believes they will cross over if they believe that Obama will be included.

The reality for Obama woulf be to step back and say NO to VP. Allow Clinton to implode and McCain win. As the nation sinks into Depression and the War continues to fail, Obama will look ever more appealing to those who will realize that they should never have voted for McCain and Clinton.


Not very nice people supporting Obama judging from their comments. One more reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Say what you like - but remember this is real world politics! do you think the rest of the world is interested in 'nice'? Vote for a woman with courage !


let me get this straight. obama is , based on a speech he hgave in 2002, prepared to be a heartbeat away from being, but not ready to be commander in chief. bill wasn't ready either. so, how does the clinton camp think bill did as president for having been less experienced in '02 than his wife is today? these people are completely inconsistent.


Obama's not going to be Hillary's VP !

Ha !

(Hillary's lost, she just doesn't realize it)

.......and when Obama gets the nomination, and becomes the next President,

guess what....Hillary isn't going to be his VP.

No way!

Obama's why too smart for that....why have the liability of a Hillary....he wouldn't get one extra vote....and he'd lose many (particularly Rebublican/independent voters) if she were on the ticket.

No, Hillary will have to settle for something less than Blair house.

(sorry Hillary...no VP for you!)


I first heard Senator john Kerry ask this question this morning: How can the Clintons say that Barack Obama is not ready to be commander in chief and yet propose the dream ticket with him as vice president? -when being vice president means you are ready to assume the position of commander in chief at a moment's notice.

I was like....Yeah! finally! The Clintons get caught in their own mean-spirited, self-serving, manipulative gutter rhetoric.

The presidency is a singular position. Nobody can claim absolute readiness because nobody can know what being ready will exactly require. Certainly a person like Clinton that voted to authorize George Bush to go to war in Iraq has no claim to good judgment.

I trust Barack Obama. I think the world would adore him, middle name and all.


My question to all readers is this: When will America live up to its own creed? How can the greatest country on earth claim its citizens can be anything they want to be, yet find reasons to tear down, discredit, slander and destroy a man who has the audacity to believe our creed is true?


Look everyone, the fact is that they both need each other for a definite win in November. Obama supporters--are you aware that recent polls show that Clinton supporters are more loyal as 25 % will vote for McCain if she is not the Dem nominee. Another 26% will not vote if she is not the nominee. Only 49% say that they will probably vote for Obama in November.

On the other hand, only 10% of Obama's supporters say they will vote for McCain if he is the nominee.

If Obama and his camp persists in their arrogance and clings to their sense of superiority, even if he wins, it is likely that he will go down in defeat come November. He polls poorly in head to head against McCain in a number of big blue and swing states--PA, MA, NJ, OH and FL etc

He needs her just as much as she needs him!


McCain is gonna win and we can all thank Clinton.



It is amazing, watching politics for 30 years now, how the Democrat party treats blacks as if they are still on the plantation. Blacks have carried the Democrat party with 95% of their vote, have a candidate at least, if not more qualitifed than Hillary Clinton, leading in the popular vote and delegates, and they ask him to be Number 3 in her administration (behind Bill). If blacks would approach the Republicans with a guarantee of 95% of the vote, they could have anything they want. The Old Southern Democrat party under Long, Gore Sr., Stennis and Fulbright (Bill's mentor) has not gone away. Let's see if black voters will buy this nonsense.


Obama admits that “probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas as a child in Southeast Asia.”

Whether you like Clinton or not, she has a good deal more experience in foreign policy, dealing with world leaders, participating in negotiations, and traveling abroad in an official capacity. Discount it though many of you will, her experience abroad includes a very active 7 years in the senate and a very involved 8 years as first lady. This is a far more substantial than claiming 4 years growing up as a pre-teen in a foreign country as experience we can depend on in a commander in chief.

JFK lamented his lack of experience regarding the Bay of Pigs fiasco saying, "Presumably, I was going to learn these lessons sometime, and maybe better sooner than later." Unfortunately, when an inexperienced President gets an education in foreign policy, it's the American people and our military that pay the high price of tuition.

With that said, I think Obama could gain precisely the kind of foreign policy experience he would need while serving a 4-year or 8-year stint as the vice-president. True, if elected president, he might prove a quicker study than JFK, but given our grim circumstances currently abroad, is that a risk that we can take?


For over a year I have been looking forward to Hillary in the White House to straighten out the mess Bush has made. Out of nowhere, based on a speech made in 2004, we have Obama. And we have the idealists, the young, the disenfranchised looking for a savior thinking they have found one. And all that will happen is that we have insured the election of McCain. The fact is neither Hillary nor Obama can win the nomination based on the caucuses and primaries. It will be the super-delegates who will decide. Then a significant percentage of those who support the loser will not vote for the winner, and choose to sit out or vote for McCain. I know this because I am one. If Hillary is not the nominee for President, I will vote for a Republican for President for the first time in 10 presidential elections. McCain is not so bad; he is Navy, as was I, and has certainly suffered for his country. McCain I know; Obama I do not.

There is no other foreseeable outcome.


Shame on Hillary for betraying her party to try to win what she calls a "game".


No one has doubts about the experience which Hillary will bring to the White House since she was the wife of Bill Clinton who had varied expertise both in intern al and external affairs. What America needs is a President to face unknown situations in this ever changing world to make history and not a President to turn the pages of lifetime history of experince. Obama is indeed the Change.


Russert thinks he is God. After the way he handled the last debate, I lost all respect for him. He is biased and has shown he cannot be trusted to present a fair representation of both candidates. I will never watch meet the press again unless they find a moderator with more integrity. Rendell is absolutely right-never in recent history have we had a candidate as experienced and qualified as Senator Clinton. Obama will be ok and better than Bush, but he will probably be an ineffective President. He didn't wow anyone in the Senate, other than his fundraising skills.


*****
Posted by: ted quinn | March 9, 2008 7:18 PM

Well, ted, you sorta' hit the nail right on the head. It is pure double-talk for the Clintons to blast Obama as too "inexperienced" to take the 3:00 a.m. phone call, yet enough to become president if Hillary somehow kicks the bucket. Either he is good enough, and Hillary & Co. are lying, or he isn't good enough, and Hillary and Co. are merely manipulating the Democrat base.

Did I hear someone say "Monster"?


To Go Vegetarian:
If Obama would gain the requisite foreign policy experinece by serving a 4 or 8 year apprenticeship as V.P. how is it that Hillary will be ready on day One? When did she serve her apprenticeship? Must have happened while we weren't looking.


Go Vegetarian!, I respectfully disagree. First of all, having a multi-cultural background, as Obama does, gives a person a perspective that cannot be learned. It allows you to look past culture in a way that isn't possible for someone born & raised in one country. Culture is the greatest communication barrier, so to have that perspective is priceless.

Second of all, Hillary does not have any DIRECT experience in international negotiations. The closest she's come is her work in Ireland, which was noteworthy but not direct participation in the peace process. It's also worth noting that Obama has made numerous visits abroad. The infamous photo of him in Kenya is a good example. It speaks to his humility that he doesn't tout such things as more than they are.


The Clintons sure like it down there in the dirt. Maybe some Hillary supporters will let us know what it feels like to wallow in the mud while looking up at the belly of an ant. Do you really think all that dirt is going to wash off?


"... she has a good deal more experience in foreign policy ..."

She'll wrinkle like a cheap pants suit under pressure from Putin et al. Maggie and Golda had the chops. The Hill's as unproven as Obama.

Might as well vote for McCain.


Go Vegetarian!

Your point re: JFK is apt. And you can even add GW to the mix to make the point.

But if you're really honest, Hillary doesn't have any more experience than Obama does. And don't say, "Well, Hillary has Bill."

Bill needed Sen. Joe Biden to convince him to take action in Bosnia. Everything else Bill did was pretty much a screw up.

Further, GW had Cheney, who was as experienced as anyone.

Indeed, you can go down the list of presidents that HAD experience and see a lot of foreign policy blunders. Even Nixon left Vietnam to the Viet Cong - even if he had been kicked out of office he would not have been able to go back.

President Bush also let Saddam stay in power. And on and on.


What a blatant contradiction! Americans are tired of the Bushs and Clintons dynasties, I guess after this chelsey expects to to be qualified to run for president.

The Obama Camp needs to bring up Rwanda / Sudan and how the Clinton Admin stood by and did nothing while almost 1M died..i guess this is what the Clintons do at 3AM in the morning.. Nothing!!


Hillary needs Obama to win, however Obama does not needs Hillary to win. Obama, Hillary & McCain all three have a lifetime of experience, however a president also needs to have good judgement. Both Hillary & McCain voted to authorise the Iraqi war and to declare Iran revolutionary guard terrorist organisation at the same time giving bush the power to go to war with Iran without the right intelligence. McCain and Hillary have bad judgement. How many more of our sons & daughters should we lose to a war that has no end? The terrible recession is on us and with trillions of dollars in debt and a war going on with little support from the International community, the once powerful and respected USA is going to fall if we do not stand up and fight for change. Change will not come easy and we have been given the opportunity to select Obama the man with the judgement to speak out against the war and forewarn about the consequences of a senseless war. Barack Obama is the man of the time. We will not get this opportunity again in our lifetime. I ask the people of Mississippi and Pennsylvania and the rest of the primaries coming up to vote for change and good judgement and unite to restore the USA to its former glory.


The Clintons have, as they say in my neighborhood, cojones to be suggesting Sen. Obama as the #2 when he is #1 in delegates, contests won, and the popular vote. Why does the press let them get away with this absurd arrogance?!


Was BILL CLINTON prepared to be Commander in Chief? No, he was horribly prepared, had no real grasp of foreign policy. And yet Hillary Clinton campaigned down hill and dale for him.

Is Obama better prepared today to tackle foreign policy than when Bill Clinton stepped into the Oval Office? I'd say he probably is.

As for Hillary Clinton being prepared -- all I ask is that those who support her candidacy explain what, exactly, has prepared her to tackle foreign policy issues or to be Commander in Chief. I am professor in a school of international affairs, with extensive experience abroad, with far more experience studying the world and current events than Hillary Clinton does, and I don't make such silly claims as the one that going to Beijing or wherever to give a speech constitutes experience to be president.
My god. . . we are not dupes.


An Obama/Billary dream ticket? I don't believe Obama would want 2 vice presidents; that would be a monstrous nightmare!


What experiences do either McCain or Hillary Clinton have that qualify them to be commander in chief, that Obama supposedly lacks? McCain was a POW. I'm sorry he was a POW, but I don't see how that particularly qualifies him to be a commander in chief. He was a pilot, fine, he did as he was ordered, but he never had any experience commanding a large military or naval unit. Should we put all the names of POWs in a hat and pull one out and make him president? As for Hillary, whose experience mainly consists of the lavish state dinners that she attended, where politics is almost never discussed? Do those dinners qualify her to be commander in chief?

And obviously, both Hillary and McCain voted to allow Bush to go ahead with his insane invasion of Iraq. McCain is a particularly sad example, still wanting to refight the Vietnam war, this time against Iraq or Iran. Remember his "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran"? The bombing didn't work in Vietnam -- all it did was cause worldwide revulsion against the United States. Just like the invasion of Iraq.


Hillary's foreign experience is what kind of tea to serve while she was experiencing foreign places. She made no decisions of note. She also took credit for Chris Dodd's 1986 Family Medical Leave Act. Before the Clintons got to the white house. Rather fraudulent, doncha think?


This has always been the problem of the political parties in fielding two favorites - as Pres. and VP, usually choosing the most qualified as Pres.

It may also be why VP's don't usually win Presidencies in subsequent elections - because they aren't qualified when they go there, and don't really get more qualified once they've been there.

VP is a horrible place to run for President from.

Hillary was just being nice and trying not to antagonize the Democratic Party, or must have had a lapse of judgement in making even the hint of an offering.

Perhaps she was foreseeing that Democrats are in a dilemma and can't figure out how to get out of it, other than choosing both.


all of this makes sense if you just remember one thing...

HILARY IS A LIAR.

when you keep that in mind, for no matter what she is saying... no matter how little sense it makes in regards to something else she might (just have) said... it all adds up. the plain and simple fact is...

SHE'S A LIAR


Hilary's "experience" has not done much to help anyone other than herself. dont forget... when it came time to vote for the war... SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR! how's that for experience?


When the 3 a.m. comes in, I want someone who is thinking only of this country.
I don't need someone who is trying to concentrate, while she wonders where her husband is, who he's with.... and will this be another scandal.


I can see the next debate....

Panelist: The first question, as all first questions, goes to Sen. Clinton, who complains that all questions go to her first, then says she's happy to take the first questions. Sen. Clinton, if you were a monster, what kind of monster would you be?

Sen. Clinton: Well, Tina Fey says I'm a bitch, so I guess that's the kind of monster I'd be.


The future is simple, the Democrats can win with Obama and the Republicans can win with Hillary.


You start with 50% of the country hating you. But you have an ex-president's political machine and a lot of personal ambition.

Could you expect another result?

HRC is THE most destructive politician to the democratic cause in a long time.


Citation:

Clinton voters are apparatchniks.

That's why Obama wins where ever the old machine isn't at work.

But fear not... Hillary and her supporters have a proven ability to suck up humiliation -- they'll come out anyway.


I think Hillary's courting of Obama for the VP spot is a very shrewd move.

First it paints him as someone fit to be a VP, more percisely her VP.

Second it courts the Obama vote, saying see you can vote for me and get Obama too.

Thirdly, I think she realizes it is the only way she will win the primary.

From Obama's view thought why should the leading candidate take a second spot?

Why would Obama tie himself, either as VP or president to someone that is going to wreck his ability to attract independent or republican votes? Hillary will motivate the republicans against her as no one else could.

As to Hillary's vast foreign policy experience here are a couple of good examples.

"Another frequent entry on Sen. Clinton's "lifetime of experience" managing foreign policy crises has been her description of a "corkscrew landing" when she was sent on a visit to Bosnia, which she has cited as evidence that as First Lady she didn't just serve tea -- she was spent to world trouble spots: "If the place was too small, too dangerous or too poor, send Hillary.""

"On the other hand, after she first started using the Bosnia trip in speeches back in Iowa, reporters figured out that Chelsea and entertainers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad were with her on the journey with her for a USO show."
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/picture_clintons_dangerous_mis.html


Maybe the dream ticket should be Sheryl Crow /Sinbad??


Here is another choice one...

Hillary: Opened borders, after they opened? (Updated)
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/hillary_i_opened_borders_after.html


If Barak Obahma is good enough to be a Vice President To Hilary CLinton if she is elected President, then he is good enough to be President now...If Hilary was elected and God Forbid, anything should befall her who do think would come into her place? So in one respect she is saying he is not ready and in another she is saying he's is...why, only because she wants the Presidency,,,not because he isn't ready....


HRC didn't say she'd have BO as her VP. She said it was too early to talk about that. And BO said the same thing. The press, again, is trying to make something out of this. And Rendell doesn't know what he's talking about. He's giving his personal opinion. He's not part of the campaign; he's an endorser. Not the same thing. The problem for the dems is that the country is basically split on these two candidates. HRC has the popular vote (yes, she does, check ABCNews for a tally). BO has the delegates. If both of these candidates aren't on the ballot in Nov. in some order then the Party risks losing half of its voters. Really. So everyone out thinking that because they love their candidate so much that he/she is it and that supporters of the other candidate will just drop their allegiance and rally around the nominee, better think again. It's a big risk. There's no guarantee that BO supporters will vote for HRC and there's no guarantee that HRC supporters will vote for BO. Polls are bull. They survey about 600 people in each state. How does that represent the majority of voters? And given the situation in Florida and Michigan the DNC is really flirting with disaster. If McCain wins it'll be because of the DNC, supporters and candidates, not being able to see the big picture. Susan Rice's comments about neither candidate having the experience to answer the call didn't help. She said "neither" with reference to BO and HRC. She was not referring to McCain. And McCain didn't hesitate to jump on the opportunity to say that he agreed with her, that neither of them are qualified. Nice. It'd be helpful if everyone could see the big picture and not just work from a set of assumptions that voters are somehow Party loyalists that will vote for the "other" democratic nominee in Nov. Those could be famous last words. And anyone buying into Howard Dean's megalomania should look back at the mess he made of his candidacy because of a few outbursts. Is he the best person to be chairing the DNC and MAKING these crucial decisions? I'm thinkin' he's not.


Will people stop saying that black people are racist because the majority of us are supportative of Obama. That is so ridiculous. Because, if that's the case Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson would have been where Obama is right now. I didn't hear anyone say black people were condition into thinking Southern white men were superior when the black population was in favor of Bill Clinton for the 8 years he served as President.

This is amazing blacks are always seen as racist and separatists, when we support a cause. Do you say the same thing when Mayor Vilagrosa won the majority of latino vote in L.A.?


The Clintons aren't going to succeed in making Obama go to the back of the bus.


Why don't people send Hillary to Iraq. Her 35 years of experience will help bring our troops back and stablize that country. US does not need HRC. With her in Iraq, Iran and Syria will be scared and peace will come quickly. She is already behaving like a Monster and we said Saddam was a monster and he was able to keep Iraq together. May be we need someone like HRC in Iraq to stablize that country. What you think?


I think what HRC is doing is to get people used to the idea to the Clinton/Obama ticket for the general election. So when the time comes she looses, people would demand to have her as the Vice President candidate for Obama. And if he doesn't put her there, she wants those people to get disappointed and not vote for him.

What a person! Can anyone honestly think she is thinking of the Democratic Party, let alone of America?

And as for her foreign experience, do those years as the first lady in the white house really count as experience?


Based on Ally's logic about American blacks? Whites are the most racist, let you tell it, because we've been refusing to vote anyone but whites for President a couple-a-hundred years or whatever, right? American blacks -- when presented with black candidates against Kerry and Clinton (or was it the election before?) -- all voted landslides or near-landslide spilts for the white guys the believed best for the nation.

Seeing as a high-majority white/multiracial support base wanted Obama to run moved his campaign along with him? You have wayyy more whites to be frustrated with, and the American blacks are just voting for another guy like Clinton, Kerry, Gore, now Obama and more great white guys, all shades of brown and more to come. Welcome to America. Now get over yourself.


One reason any non-committed person to start supporting Hillary is - reading this blog and other blogs, where Obama supporters manifest their impatience, arrogance, name calling, and utter lack of civility.

Man, at one point I even imagined that there would be a gun battle in caucuses.

If Obama to become President because of these people's support - then we are having very serious problem in our education system. Thanks to Reagan's Education Fund cuts!

There is no greater danger from anybody as US president to US and the world, than the damaging culture of these "educated" folks.


Obama is so skillful with his words: twisting them, employing cover/uncover techniques, saying "no" but doesn't give relevant reasons, saying optimistic quotes such as "change" without specific details, suggesting universal health care when his health care does not cover children, and many other illusional tactics. Obama blindfolds the majority of Americans and even more impressively the majority of the media about who he is and what he will do to America.

The Primary process does not help as well. Although 2/3 of registered Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton, the Primary process allows citizens from other Parties such as Independents and Republicans to vote in the Democrat Primary. Thus, Independents and Republicans can mess up the Democrat Primary by voting for the candidate that the Democrats do not want. As a consequence, the 2/3 of registered Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton do not mean much. It's the Independents and Republicans who are deciding the winner of the Democrat Primary.


I wouldnt trust Obama because of his double speak. Back channeling the Canadians on nafta and the Brits on the Iraq withdrawal makes me think Obama doesn't really believe anything he says.
I dont think he would make a good vp.


HRC is by no means a stupid woman. She knows exactly what she is doing. She is diabolically manipulative. She’ quite aware of her pledge delegate deficits and the long shot of her getting the nomination without back room negotiations with superdelegates. Therefore, if she can’t maneuver the nomination by selling a Clinton/Obama ticket, then she will not so subtly endorse a John McCain presidency and the logic is: If John McCain becomes president the likelihood that he would serve more than one term at his age is not very strong. Therefore, in four years she'll get another shot at the "big chair". On the contrary an Obama presidency will go for a second term run. HRC wouldn't get another shot until 2016 and of course by then she'll be just about 70 years old.
The logic is quite clear if viewed from the Clintonian perspective. HRC’s consistent endorsement of McCain may not serve the democratic party, but it does serve the Clinton agenda. Her recent statements are the most blatant evidence that she will say and do anything to serve her REAL agenda...and that "my friends" has nothing to do with working and middle class democrats, healthcare or Iraq. That "my friends" has everything to do with Clinton-style ego and power. Think about it, HRC is an “experienced” democrat that’s been around long enough to know never to endorse the other party’s candidate over a fellow democrat even if the democrat is your rival. To do so would be naïve and inexperienced, and Hillary has made it quite clear that she is experienced.


As Clinton’s campaign simultaneously questions Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief and enthusiastically promotes him as a vice-presidential choice should she win the nomination, a Clinton surrogate this morning made the unusual argument that Obama is “qualified” to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still falls far short of Clinton’s readiness for the job.

Tony DT's comment took the words out of my mouth. Hillary and her campaign really seem to suffer from multiple personality disorder. I mean they are offically off the reservation!! This is what Mrs ready on day one offers us, a dissociative mental disorder characterized by the existence in a person of two or more distinct, independent personalities, any of which may control behavior while being unaware of the other personalities and their memories.

Not exactly presidential.


This is a very old trick. Trying to paint him as less then as well as appearing conciliatory at the same time. Reminds me of Obi-wan..."This is not the candidate your looking for." Sorry Hillary, we aren't buying.


This is just another classic, dirty Clintonian move. By "offering" Obama a VP slot, knowing full well that it's not acceptable to him, Hillary is trying to cast him in a negative light. For all the Democrats out there who would like to see an united Democratic party, this move makes it looks like it's Obama who is refusing to cooperate for the sake of the party. Hillary is trying to portray Obama is some guy who's after his own glory instead of putting the party's interest ahead. But one has to wonder why she's appearing to hand out the olive branch in one hand, but continues to stab Obama in the back with the other hand. What Obama should do is, intead of saying no, just simply tell the Clinton camp that he might consider her as the VP. That should take the wind out her sail. This is another reason why Hillary cannot be the president. I hope that people will wake up and see her as the monster she really is.


Hillary latest endorsement of McCain is proof enough that we need real Washington change. Change so people ca have more say has been Obama's platform from the get-go. America should and the Democratic party should support the will of the people.


Obama has a significant lead even if Hillary takes every single delegate in PA. She has alot of nerve to even discuss him as a VP. She'll be lucky if HE gives HER a position in HIS administration at this point. Quite frankly, the above discussion by Rendell actually sounded like he supports Obama.

Thomas, your thinking is backwards. Are you saying that if Obama gets the nod, the Democratic voters won't vote for him? Hillary won the majority in Texas because of the conservative voters. They want to run against her. The Repubs who voted for Obama are legitimate cross-overs.


So, Hillary is endorsing McCain over Senator Obama, thus giving the Republicans support should Obama emerge as the party nominee, thus clearing the ground for HER run in 2012, after McCain with Hillary's endorsement defeats Obama. At the same time Bill and Hill say she would like to have Obama as veep. Anything and everything--every lie, smear, dirt, assassination, corruption--to return the Clinton Dynasty and their machine to the WH. Where is the media's outrage against the Clinton machine? Every big state the Clintons have won has been a machine-run state. The Democratic Party now has its front-runner wife of a Democratic President endorsing the Republican nominee for 2008, against Obama, the Democratic winner of more states and more votes than Mrs Clinton. The Clintons' dynastic tactics are those of a banana republic, which is where they are bringing our beloved country to.


Obama's lifetime experience? Community worker in exactly whose communities? on the Harvard Law Review? Doing what? Lifting other folks' work there? Beating a guy for the IL legislature that my sofa could have whupped? Doing next to nothing there, voting present, missing crucial votes & using the people of IL to fuel his presidential ambition? I would accept a Clinton/Obama ticket, with the hope he would use the VP as a position to actually accomplish something. Put in the work, earn your keep.


Look, Hillary has been pointing out all along that she is a better candidate and more experienced than Obama. Especially that comment that she is experienced, McCain is experienced and Obama has a speech. She is trying to point out that she is a better match over Obama against McCain.

I think that's an acceptable thing to do when you're applying for a job. I think she is being incredibly democratic by trying to unite the party. Maybe she'll end up in the VP position but I don't blame her for trying to get the top of the ticket.

And, I do like Obama, I am defending Hillary because I think she is being treated unfairly by those that are focusing on her so called negative campaigning which I think is fair campaigning. None of the so called negative tactics (Obama photo, Obama email, Candadian thing) have been proven to come from her with the excpetion of the staff memeber that sent out that email who was then fired.

She is fighting for her campaign and making a compromise. Let the people decide if it's a good ticket.


It's the Independents and Republicans who are deciding the winner of the Democrat Primary.


Posted by: thomas | March 10, 2008 2:19 AM

They're called American people. Refer to them correctly!!!


"Obama's lifetime experience? Community worker in exactly whose communities? on the Harvard Law Review? Doing what? Lifting other folks' work there?"

This is the kind of comment that to me reflects what the Hillary campaign and her surrogates have regressed into. Their candidate will stop at nothing to smear Mr Obama instead of letting her own qualities guide voters. But when you think about it perhaps that really is all she offers. She isn't anymore prepared to be the president at day one than Laura Bush.

The Clinton campaign reaks of desperation. Sad.


The Clinton Dynasty has been truly running a monstrous campaign. The Democratic Party may well be terminally weakened by the end of the Clintons' race back to the WH. The entire nation is watching this ruthless disgusting blood-letting as the Clinton machine rampages against the Obama movement. When Hillary and Bill triumph, many of the new voters and many of us old Dems will stay home in November, or if Bloomsburg jumps in as an independent, we will throw our new-non-Democratic status behind him. For whatever reason, Senator Obama has been able to tap into our desire for a better America. The Clintons have raised repeatedly the old demons of racism and sexism that have be-devilled us as a people, and these old negative tear-down politics appear to be winning. Goodbye, Democratic Party. Goodbye, American idealism and patriotism. Goodbye, young energized voters. And say, Hillary, hey, hey, hey! How many lies did you tell today?


Let's be honest: Baltimore is the capital of racism.
If a voter group votes for one candidate by more than 90%, and so many "super delegates" defect to Obama for all kinds of lame excuses, it is racism. Period.


RENDELL: "I think the, the issue should be framed as ready compared to Hillary Clinton."

Gosh thanks for telling me how to think, Gov. Rendell. For a minute I thought Hillary's campaign was sending mixed signals about Barack's experience, but now I see that I simply "framed" the issue incorrectly.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.


So will this result in a co-presidency plus Obama?
Hill, Bill, and Barack?
Bad idea...


Carl,
It's amazing how racism suddenly comes into play when a black candidate is winning. It's ok and natural for whites to support white candidates but shame on the black folks for supporting a black candidate. In Clinton's case, the Hispanic, white women and older voters are earned support not racism. Last I checked, Hillary has more super delegates and most of them are white, so why aren't you making a big deal of that?

Obama has more experience as an elected official than HIllary and Edwards. He performed better in law school including being president of Harvard law review. Most importantly he has more integrity than Hillary and has managed his campaign better.

The saddest thing is the hypocrisy of some U.S. Americans. These supposed Christians carry hate in their heart. Obama as a VP tantamount to sending him in the back of the bus because of his skin color. Shame on you all that have no decency or sense of fairness!


- "Shame on you Barak Obama".... "will you be my VP please"!!!!"
- "You do not have the experience to be the commander in chief"
- Well if I die, I won't realy care if, being my VP, that you become the commander in chief, I'll be dead!!!!
Me: I do not want that wako brain to be my president. It is not good for our mental health.


How fast everyone forgets the mystery of thst guy named foster who was hillarys lover while in the easrly days of white house which was a continuation from Arkansas governors mansion episodes. Wheo kieed fioster, billy boy hillsry or a hired friend. It sure was not a suicide. The opowers of living in the white house.


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 "o" in the field below: