Clinton better in November?: The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted April 27, 2008 2:56 PM
The Swamp

By Paul West

The fight for the Democratic presidential nomination may come down to a question: Would Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton be the stronger candidate in November?

"What you have to ask yourself is who you believe would be the better nominee to go toe-to-toe against John McCain," Clinton said after beating Obama in Pennsylvania last week.

Clinton can't win the most delegates in the primaries, so she is framing the choice for the party's superdelegates - who will likely settle the nomination - around that question.

Obama, who would become the nominee if the superdelegates simply ratify the primary and caucus results, is playing along, though his performance over the last few weeks has done little, if anything, to advance the case for his electability.

Deciding which Democrat has the better chance of winning the presidency isn't nearly so simple as it might seem, according to independent analysts and party strategists who aren't working for either candidate.

"It's more or less pick 'em, if you were a handicapper," said Andrew Kohut, whose independent Pew Research Center has polled nationally and in battleground states. "You'd say you can't make the case for either one."

National opinion surveys illustrate his point. In the Gallup tracking poll's latest election match-ups, a post-Pennsylvania bounce has put Clinton three points ahead of McCain; Obama is dead even with McCain ("That's much closer than you'd expect for a Republican candidate, given all the Democratic advantages" this election year, Kohut pointed out).

At the moment, concluding which candidate is more electable appears more of an art (that is, educated guesswork) than science.

A highly unscientific sample of those interviewed for this article came down on the side of Obama's superior electability, but the view wasn't unanimous. Some saw him as only marginally stronger, and no one said that Clinton's argument was unreasonable.

"It's not crazy. It's not an absurd case. It's a debatable question," said Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes an independent election newsletter. "There are clearly some Democrats in some key states who aren't going to vote for Obama: older voters, blue-collar voters, the old Reagan Democrats."

Clinton's strategy is to keep the race going as long as possible, in hopes that doubts about Obama will grow. Already, his position "has been eroded" by losing big industrial state primaries, said Rothenberg. It "reminds people who weren't paying attention that he has trouble with a key Democratic voter constituency" - working-class voters.

Alan Secrest, a Democratic pollster, said it was "absolutely unknowable" at this point who would be a stronger nominee but that the picture might be clearer by the time the primaries end in early June.

Obama "sometimes does better with independents and some Republicans," said Secrest. But once the Republicans "have worked him over, I suspect there'd be relatively little difference" between him and Clinton.

What is evident already, said analysts, is that the shape of the fall campaign will depend on which Democrat heads the ticket.

An Obama-McCain contest would be unlike any in recent memory and hinge on an unusually large group of independent, swing voters. A match between Clinton and McCain would more closely resemble the polarized 2000 and 2004 elections, a battle to turn out each party's voter base.

Clinton maintains that she can keep more Democrats from crossing over to the Republican side than Obama. But if she's the nominee, "young people will not turn out" and the African-American vote will be depressed, predicted Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

If Obama is the candidate, "there will be some people who will not vote for him because of race," he said. "But most of the Democrats will come into the fold, because of things like the war and the economy."

Last week, each candidate made new pitches to the superdelegates, promoting what they see as their unique advantage on the electoral map, based on states they've won so far. But both camps are stretching the predictive value of primaries, strategists said.

A number of the states won by Clinton, such as New York and California, are reliably Democratic in presidential elections and will be again this fall, regardless of who heads the ticket, they said. Meanwhile, Florida, where she prevailed in a primary that the Democratic National Committee invalidated in advance, will likely go Republican in any event.

Obama argues that he can put "red states" in play that Clinton cannot. He's touting his strength in places, such as North Carolina and Texas, that neither he nor Clinton would have a realistic chance of carrying, the analysts said, unless the election became a Democratic rout.

What has caught the attention of Democratic strategists is a handful of traditional battleground states-including Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan-that could well be pivotal and where doubts about Obama's strength have grown in recent weeks.

In Michigan, said longtime pollster Ed Sarpolus, "Barack Obama has to understand that if he is to have any chance of overcoming the racial factor, he has to develop a middle-class message, and he has yet to find that."

In Ohio, Clinton would probably do better than Obama against McCain, said Secrest, who advises congressional candidates in the state. He cautioned that it was "a tough call at this point" but "conceivably" Clinton could carry Ohio and Obama could lose it.

The ultimate question is how much difference the electability argument will make with the roughly 230 uncommitted superdelegates - governors, congressmen, senators and DNC members -with the power to choose any candidate they like.

Many dread their role as deciders, afraid of alienating a vast constituency no matter which way they go, and they aren't engaged at all in the debate the candidates are staging for their benefit, according to Bill Carrick, a Democratic consultant.

These superdelegates, he explained, "are basically younger members of Congress and DNC members." They are so uncomfortable making a decision, he added, that they would prefer making none at all.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo


You've already lost Shillary, get over it and PLEASE take your bra burning, over-the-hill, psycho-feminist fanclub with you when you leave!

Hillary doesn't deserve to even stand on the same stage as Obama let alone have a debate with him anymore.

I'm glad Obama is finally taking some swings back at her, she has ran such a lowlife scumbag slash and burn campaign that it would even make Karl Rove blush.

The Clintons are showing us their trues faces, the faces that were kept hidden from the public for all of these years, and it ain't a pretty sight.

We have Bill telling us unapologetically that he did Monica "because he could".

We have Clinton lying about Tuzla, and then lying to try and cover her lies.

These people are hardened politicos, and will stop at nothing to win steal the nomination, just like the Bush family in 2000.

Both the Bushes and the Clintons know that they could not win fair and square, so they deem that the end justifies the means for them.

They both think that the American public are sheeple to be fleeced, lied to and manipulated and they both have zero integrity.

It is laughable that they call themselves "Christians".

I never warmed up to the Clintons, even though I voted for Bill twice, and maybe intuitively, deep down I sensed something was lacking.

Now I despise them both and I will never change my mind about them.

There is no choice here. HRC is the only candidate that we as Democrats that can win against McCain...If the press had vetted Obama at the onset like they have previously done with each candidate we would not even be having this conversation....Obama's legacy will always be Rev. Wright,Rezco, Ayers and the list goes on and on..He can nver win in November..Then we will have another 4 years of Bush. Four more years of wars and poverty here in the States...Obama may be great at basketball, however he is not great at picking his associates..He is unelectable and not White House material..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME....hrc WILL DO IT...

Why should Obama debate Shillary?

Shillary has already LOST and it would only give her over-the-hill feminist nutjob supporters more reason to try and smear Obama and destroy the Democratic Party.

As far as I'm concerned, these nutty Shillary feminists/fans can go vote for McCain or go chase parked cars or whatever else they do in their spare time, just get lost, go have a bra burning party or whatever. You were never real democrats anyway because the last time I checked we didn't have a monarchy anymore which means Shillary is not going to be the queen.

If we get a McCain Presidency it will be their fault and the bomb bomb Iran, 100 years in Iraq they get will be what they deserve.

At first glance, I thought the bi-line was, Clinton Bitter in November. As for what the column addresses, I don't think Senator Clinton would be the best candidate we can but forth. Her negatives are too high and her inexperience is obvious, otherwise, she wouldn't have voted for the Iraqi disaster!! No, I think, we, Democrats, are better represented by Senator Obama!

Hillary has become especially hard to take because she can’t get what she wants without lying a lot, and nobody any longer believes a thing she says. It would help were she as good a liar as her nominal husband is, but even Bill Clinton can’t lie like a Clinton any longer. Even the price of Clintons in China has gone through the floor.

Good point, Paul... it MAY come down to it at this point--and it had better come down to that in the fall or we will LOSE and LOSE big.
The Obama campaign opened up huge rifts between feminists and non feminists--race rifts, class rifts that did not need to be addressed until he was a viable, vetted candidate 8 years from now.
Just today Eric Michael Dyson was on Bob Edwards talking about 'white america' this and 'white people' that.
I thought the messiah was the uniter candidate, the 'change' candidate?
I used to think that Obama would be a good veep for Hilary.
Now--not so much.

And if Hillary wins, the only White Houe renovations will be setting up more rooms so their female donor friends can spend the night (with Bill) in the Lincoln Bedroom, as it was during Bill's presidency.

I really regret that before the media and Hillary got rolling, Obama had a diverse and inspired following. Now it is constant pseudo-analyses (by untrained journalists looking to crack a new story) about how many blacks/women/whites/blue-collar/elderly/white males/catholics/, yada yada, vote for whom. It has reached a point of ridiculosity where people falling into those groups are forced to question their own judgment if they don't "fit the pattern." IOWA HAD IT RIGHT!

by Tim Dickinson


The Hillary camp is now saying that the candidate simply mispoke in concocting an elaborately detailed Bosnian war story of sniper fire and corkscrew maneuvers and running, heads down to armored vehicles.


Hillary is a habitual teller of tall tales. She’s far worse than Al Gore ever was.

Let us not forget that she long claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, long after it was pointed out that Edmund was an anonymous beekeeper in New Zealand at the time of her birth, when, she long claimed, her mother read a news clipping of Eddie’s exploits and gave his name to a daughter who was also destined for great heights. (Shortly before she jumped into presidential politics, Hillary kinda sorta fessed up that this just wasn’t true.)

And then there’s this idea that Clinton, in 1975, attempted to become one of the Few. The Proud. The Marines. Right after moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill. Really, I’m not making this up.

But she may well have been.

Hillary claims she was turned away for being a bespectacled woman. Not entirely improbable. But fishy, because it’s almost identical to another mythical tale from her childhood, in which Clinton says she wrote away to NASA, asking what it would take for her to become an astronaut, only to have her childhood hopes dashed by the sexist culture of the space program.

I for one am less troubled by the fact that the senator is a teller of parables and tall tales, than by the fact that she cannot, for the life of her, admit fault.

She didn’t misspeak.


She was caught in a whopper. Perhaps several.

Don’t compound the error with double talk.

It’s time to fess up to all of your lies, Billary

If Obama is the nominee, I'll write in Hillary's name in November. She's the better candidate. I trust her on the economy, health care, and national security.


Hillary doesn't want to run in November.

She wants to damage Obama so badly that he will lose and she will say, "I told you so."

I'm going to predict right now that the vast conspiracy network that Hillary has amassed is plotting to release some info about Obama in the coming month that will either lose him the Democratic nomination or completely damage his chances in November.

Lets compare their records and find out who is "better";

Hillary Can't Wait: Screw'emGate


Downside Legacy at Two Degrees of Bill Clinton

The Clinton Legacy

Barack Hussein Obama

Hillary has the Best Chance to win against Mccain. She has lied,and has appologized for it. Obama is afraid to debate her,which are showing his weaknesses,and its only the April. Obama has bad friends as followers. This will haunt him come November.

Hillary said obliterate Iran to appeal to the Jewish vote.
Three US aircraft carriers are on their way to the Persian Gulf in preparation for the attack against Iran. Hillary or Obama will not be the decider it will probably happen in October so Bush can boost McCain's chances for the White House. Then Bush can go back to Texas and bask in the glory that he stopped terrorism.

I think if Hillary is the nominee it will divide the party beyond reconciliation. I for one will not vote for her. I think if she is in the White House there will be a lot of firing and misremembering. She is a power hungry liar, who will say anything about anyone if she thinks it will get her the nomination. Why do you think the Republicans are already out to get Obama before the nomination THE GOP IS AFRAID OF OBAMA, because they know that he has rallied so many young people an independents. I am a woman over 50 and find Hillary disgusting.

HRC's argument is unreasonable. Obama hasn't brought up any of the many, many scandals at everybody's fingertips. Even IF McCain weren't to mention them, many others would. Does the country really want to go through all of that again? We have options.

DNC, it is now time you got rid of the Clintons.

Hillary isn't the only one who has lied. Obama has had at least three figures for what Tony Rezko donated to his campaigns- starting around $25,000 and ending up paying back $250,000. Maintaining he knew nothing of his minister's more controversial sermons after 20 years in sitting in his church (how gullible are you?).Saying he didn't sign a statement regarding gun control-then it was proven to be his signature, etc., etc. etc. The only difference between them is that the meida is all over Clinton about her lies while they excuse or ignor Obama's lies. Take your blinders off, folks.

If Obama doesn't win the nomination after all this favorable build up, there will be rioting in the streets of Baltimore and all over the country.
Stores will be looted and burned, and white people will be targets of violence.

Wait a minute, that last part about white people being targeted...that's already happening. Oh well vote for Barack or it might be worse.

All I know is McCain wants Clinton to be the candidate he'll beat in November. He doesn't want to run against Obama, which makes me support Obama, because McCaine is even scarier than Bush/Cheney.

The GOP's far right has such little faith in America that they can only feel patriotic by categorically denouncing all people that are critical of it, regardless of intent. They use this amputated, insecurity to judge Obama's patriotism, a man who gave up 6-figure jobs after graduating Magna-Cu*-Laude to fight for blue-collar folks, for $12K per year. This view undercuts the basic premise of free will and self-determination that runs through the Constitution. Yet, it is now being sheepishly adopted by Clinton, who has never shown the courage to stand up for these principles in the first place.

1. Rendell praises Farrakhan, yet Hillary attack Obama for being praised by F.

2.Bill Clinton pardons two leaders of the Weather Underground, yet Hillary attacks Obama for knowing a third

3. MLK says similar statements yet Hillary makes a big deal about Wright
MLK: “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos,” said King in 1967 speeches on foreign policy, “without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”…

4. Clinton Foundation gets $131 million for Bill's public declaration for Kazakhstan's leader...undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

5. Bill Clinton get $800,000 from Columbian government, yet Hillary attacks Obama on free-trade

5. Bill and Hillary fraud trial (in OCT '08) for taking Ron Paul's money

6. Hillary has never signed the American Freedom Pledge, Barrack has

What this long nomination process has proved is Obama can't close the deal. Many want to blame Clinton for this, but it is the stupid, idiotic way the Democratic party runs its primaries. Blame the superdelegates since the party has given them so much power in who should be the candidate.

Clinton has every right to stay in this race since neither she or Obama will have enough delegates when the primaries are over.

Obama's baggage is frightening, because Wright, Rezko, Auchi, Ayers and Dohrn are just the tip of the iceberg, thanks to a very protective pro-Obama press. I'm a lifelong Democrat who has never voted Republican. However, if I can't get the centrist, practical candidate I want (Clinton), I will vote for John McCain (or any Republican) to stop the ultra liberal insider from running the country. He just isn't qualified and his "friends" are dangerous. I don't want Obama (who is either blind, naive, or dangerously calculating) to be in a position to continue filling positions in the Federal bureaucracy or the DNC. I want him out of Presidential politics and I also want the people backing him out of Presidential politics. The care of the U.S. and it's citizens is not his priority.

I wouldn't vote for Billary Clinton even if she were the last Presidential candidate on earth:

Today's Boston Globe has another editorial, entitled Hillary Strangelove, that points out how truly stupid and foolhardy Hillary Clinton's recently articulated commitment to "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" is, labeling the policy a "foolish and dangerous threat [that] was muted in domestic media coverage".

Responding to questions in the British House of Lords, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown said of Hillary's Soviet-Style threats of a mushroom cloud blossom over Iran:

"While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country."
Saudi Arabian Newspapers (the same Saudi Arabia who is supposedly one of the most at risk from "Iranian Aggression" and would benefit the most from Hillary Poppin's Nuclear Umbrella Strategy) called the threats:

"the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations."
The Boston Globe went on to add (emphasis mine):

The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy. But they understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the hands of Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability. They argue that Iran must have that capability in order to deter the United States from doing what Clinton threatened to do.

While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in Pakistan, her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to realize that she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian people have been more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the Middle East.
Totally misunderstanding of the politics, religion, and culture of the Middle East? Strengthening marginal hard-liners and providing them the justification to proliferate nuclear weapons? Pandering to extreme American Zionism and "Christian Zionism" in order to score cheap points and win an election? Refusal to believe the Nation's own intelligence establishment?

Hillary Clinton is George Bush, Jr. folks. Clear and simple.

The wishier-washier members of the Left and the Democratic Party often shrug off the primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, claiming there is not a difference between the two candidates would be better than President Bush. Hillary Clinton's "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" policy clearly shows that sentiment to be an outright lie.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a NeoCon Skirt masquerading in a Progressive Pant Suit. A vote for Hillary is a vote for endless war in the Middle East on behalf of a narrow set of interests. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more Islamic Extremism and Terrorism. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Less Diplomacy. A vote for Hillary is a vote that potentially brings the world that much closer to Nuclear Genocide.

Or as the Boston Globe put it:

A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.


Clinton, NAFTA lies:

Clinton, campaign fundraising lies:

Clinton, healthcare lies:

Clinton lies about her role in the Ireland peace talks:

...and of course, Clinton lies about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia:

What is very evident just from the comments regarding the article is that the "hate" is within the democratic party for each other. Wow, a party of unity - NOT. Keep fighting and may the best man/woman still be standing with an once of integrity in Nov.

Paul--given the ageist, sexist comments from the Obama supporters on this blog today and other days--particularly today--looks like they were lurking for ANYTHING to go up so they could glom onto it
Why not a good investigation:
Get a mole inside 'Camp Obama' and watch how the training goes.
Who's in charge? Gender?
Comments about women of various ages, races, class status?
I think I know what you'll find--but it would be a good story about the 'uniter' wanna be.

There is NO Question Sen Obama is better. Look at how Sen Clinton ran her campaign, that alone says we don't want her running the White House. She is Broke....she took an unbelievable national lead and is now losing. She only cares about a handful of states. NO QUESTION Sen Obama!!!!!!!!

Finally, the real question of 'who will win the general election' is being debated. Winning the white house should be the #1 priority for all delegates, not just the superdelegates, as well as the party leaders.

Talks such as 'taking the nomination away from Obama' are fueled by Obama and his supporters feeling of entitlement. Neither he nor Clinton earns the required delegates to earn the nomination outright. To believe that Obama should win because he has more votes/delegates is to change the rule in the middle of the game. Given that we are into unchartered water, the only key question to be answered is who can bring the white back to the Dems.

Hillary Clinton, as with the Bosnia sniper fire delusion, suffers from a fantasy that she is the front-runner, and with her forever shifting goalposts, her new fuzzy math and kitchensink-sewer, failed and bankrupt campaign, wants Obama to give her FREE AIR TIME to debate her for the TWENTY-SECOND time. I am an Asian American feminist older than Mrs. Clinton and as an American patriot, I need to do the right thing and tell Mrs. Clinton, shut up already! The Clinton dynasty has been spoiling not just Obama's race in November but also the entire Democratic Party and its representatives'--congressmen, governors, district officers, mayors, etc, etc--abiliity to win in future elections. Bill is fighting Obama to return to the WH for a third term, and Obama has been fighting not just two Clintons (both playing every dirty card in politics) but also the GOP and the mainstream media who want to see the contest continue and their high ratings maintained. Senator Obama MUST denounce and reject Hillary's shameless agenda, to gain free public airtime off his back. He MUST stop treating Hillary as an older white woman like his mother and therefore to be respected and see her for the corrupt (25 million dollars gained from influence peddling last year alone), lying (Bosnia sniper fire), bullying (Judas name-calling), ruthless (just look at her ads), unelectable (highest negatives ever in a presidential candidate, and negatives increasing every day) small human that she is. He MUST begin to draw the contrasts in campaign tone, character, and track record on community work and protection of our constitution that show Hillary as the base candidate that she is.

Senator Clinton has just over a week before she if finished.

She is now attacking Senator Obama over PAC money and lobbyist money. She must think the American people are stupid. Lets take a look at the facts.

How about personal contributions from lobbyist?

"A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

The former first lady said that she welcomed the debate on the issue.

"I've been waiting for this. This gives us a real sense of reality with my being here," Clinton said, prompting a loud rumble from the audience at a candidates' forum sponsored by The Daily Kos.

Edwards' response was to ask, "How many people in this room have a Washington lobbyist working for you?"

"You are not represented by Washington lobbyists. We need to cut these people off," he said, to cheers.

Hello, Earth to Lori

Iowa did not get anything right in fact they took a Radical HARD left turn…

NOT only did they vote in Obama (Radical Hard LEFT) They stood tall for Huckabee (EXTREME Right Wing) who won that state’s Republication nomination on the SAME night.

IOWA is the state who voted to nominate a man who does not even believe in EVOLUTION. The process of evolution is a scientific fact.

So when you see IOWA in that light, they voted in the two MOST extreme candidates -then you see where the trouble began.

NOW what does that tell you about IOWA? Living in a fantasy; Obama and Huckabee.

The Republications showed that they are deviant in so many ways and strapped for cash in the worst way… but they still are the better strategists.

After that night they gave up the fantasy and moved on to their only viable candidate, McCain.

To compound the trouble the DNC is holding to penalties against two states that deserve to have their votes counted.

This whole idea of penalizing candidates by taking away American citizens right to have thier vote counted is UNAMERICAN. Not too mention the fact that it is the republican legislature who changed the date and not the democrats.

Even if they need to be punished it is still UNCONSTITUIONAL to do so by denying the vote.

NO ONE is supposed to be denied a vote. As far as the rules already being set those rules were NEW. They were entirely made up by DEAN of the DNC who favors Obama. DEAN made the candidates agree to this scheme. A scheme that is ENTIRELY BIASED.

Obam and Clinton can agree to count those votes and then it would be okay - but Obama won't agree to do that since it CHANGES his tragectory. (so much for the candidate of change)

Voters have every reason to CHALLENGE this nonesense because the vote totals should be reliable and right now they are slanted.

I am so glad Senator Clinton has taken the high road in this campaign. She is truly a class act! So much ugliness has been slung at she and her supporters from the Obama camp and still we stand strong. She is far and away the better candidate to take on McCain in November because she has the experience, strength and the backing of regular blue collar folks in the Democratic party. We cannot win back the White House without the support of these hard-working Americans. We also can't win back the White House without taking Florida, Ohio, California and Pennsylvania...all states won handily by Senator Clinton. She's also won NM, NV, AZ, TX, OK, AR, RI, MA, NJ, TN, MI and NY. The most populous of these states are also vital to a Democratic win in November. We have no chance of taking UT, ID, MS, NE, SC or GA in November no matter who we have on the ticket. Those states will automatically go red. I'm behind Senator Clinton 110% and from the looks of the fundraising happening now for her campaign, I'm in very good company indeed! If you support her, please get involved in her campaign...make phone calls, volunteer at your local office, make contributions, etc. for more info.

Was it a deliberate attempt of Hillary to tell a blatant lie about what happened in Bosnia when all along she knew that what really happened is what she has written in her book? Without the TV news clip that recorded what actually happened, she would have gotten away with her lie. It is quite obvious she has no credibilty and can not be trusted. Is this the kind of person you want to be the President of the USA? One can just imagine how she will abuse the power once she gets it.

I know it's a link to that 'other paper' across town--but there's some serious information people supporting Obama had BEST review, and see if they can refute, before they continue backing this heartbreaker:
NOW--before anybody starts crying (I did that about candidates in my 20s, 30s, also) about this--remember--You've got a great friend in Hillary and we HRC supporters are a very forgiving bunch.
We know you were deluded.
But remember---BIll and Hillary fought back ALMOST SOLO against the onslaught of Newt Gingrich.
And won.
They're a good horse to back.
All the celebs for Obama will come around and rally for Hillary.
But don't base your selection of a candidate, in the future, by IGNORNING what's in the news while looking for the celebs in the photos.

Obama's negatives are simply overwhelming at this point.... This needs to be factored in...

Clinton has every right to stay in this race since neither she or Obama will have enough delegates when the primaries are over.

Posted by: carol | April 27, 2008 4:33 PM

Don't look now but no one is debating this point. In fact, a MONTH ago Obama said the same thing.

Keep your eyes on the prize if you're going to post here, people. If you're going to be a fair-weather pundit, go to the Sun-Times.

Hello Lori and Voice of Reason:

I'm from Iowa. Voice of Reason truly is "the voice of reason."

If Clinton Can't Run A Campaign, How Can She Run The White House?:

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
Saturday, April 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — Despite Hillary Clinton's big win in Pennsylvania last week, the story of her campaign is often one of mismanagement and missed opportunities, and it raises questions about how she'd organize and run the White House.

"There's a certain style to the campaign, and it shows what we might expect in a Clinton presidency: a lot of viewpoints and a messiness," said James McCann, a political science professor at Purdue University in Indiana.

Whether that's a good or bad trait is in the eye of the analyst. McCann called it "policymaking through trial and error," similar to how Bill Clinton ran his administration, which to many was a big success.

But her campaign tumbled from riches to rags to rebounds — and now to hanging on for dear life. It wasn't supposed to be that way.

Not many months ago, Clinton was the consensus front-runner, with a 30-point lead in national polls, $118 million raised in 2007 and the backing of most Democratic power brokers.

Today she trails Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in convention delegates, campaign cash and the popular vote.

How'd that happen?

Obama proved to be a phenomenal opponent — that's surely one answer. But some critics see Clinton's campaign as a runaway truck that careened from primary to primary in search of a structure that works.

From the time the former first lady announced her White House bid 15 months ago, her strategy was driven by three ideas: Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee so everyone should jump on her bandwagon; she had a seasoned team adept at finding and appealing to wide varieties of voters; and she could outraise and outspend all rivals.

"The bottom line is that she went in with a set of assumptions that proved to be false," said John Geer, the editor of the Journal of Politics.

The notion that she was the inevitable winner left a lot of activists cold.

"You got the sense that her attitude was, 'I'm the nominee, so what else are you going to do?''' said Gordon Fischer, a former Iowa Democratic Party chairman.

As the Des Moines lawyer tried to decide on a candidate last year, Clinton would call him occasionally, but when he said that he wanted to go out on a campaign bus for a day, he said, "No one ever got back to me."

Obama's campaign did. Fischer spent a day going to a barbecue with 15 people and six other events. He signed up with Obama in late September.

"No rookie candidate can claim inevitability," said California political strategist Bob Mulholland. "Only a president can."

Clinton's second stumble was trusting advisers who not only bickered openly, but also seemed to lack the strategic vision that a presidential campaign requires.

Until recently, Clinton's top strategist was Washington pollster Mark Penn, the author of last year's book "Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes."

However, 2008 has become the year of the big trend.

Since October, the AP-Ipsos poll has found that roughly 70 percent of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, thanks largely to frustration over Iraq and the economy. Americans want big change, not micro-measures.

Compounding Clinton's problem was Penn, who's widely perceived as arrogant and awkward with people. "He has the social skills of a mollusk," said William Curry, a former counselor to Bill Clinton.

Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire party chairwoman, agreed: "Every time I saw him on TV, I thought he was losing us voters."

Penn didn't respond to requests for comment.

As the campaign progressed in 2008, Clinton faced a third problem: Her team had expected her to sew up the nomination on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday. It burned through more than $118 million trying to make that happen, spending so furiously that Clinton even lent herself $5 million at the end of January.

But when Obama fought her to a draw that day, Clinton seemed to have no Plan B.

Full Story:

Every time Hillary share the stage with Obama, she out performs him, every time I listen to her speak she gives me a reason to support her. Obama has done nothing to earn my vote and he will not have it in the fall. Our country is entering scary times and the last thing we need is "change"....we need well though out policies to get our country back on track and he has done nothing in my opinion to support that he will.

All this over Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base" Clinton...for President ? NO WAY !!!!! I can picture the GOP's attack ads against her already !!!!!!!!!!

(A Multi-Racial Grassroots Org....Dedicated To Truth)

I'm always amazed at how nasty Obama supporters are and reminded over and over again that they blog more than any other demographic group because they are YOUNG, UNEMPLOYED KIDS, for the most part. All the comments, blogs, etc. are not representative of our nation as a whole....there are MILLIONS of voters that will NEVER vote Obama that do not USE A COMPUTER. These comments to every political story are A MINORITY of voters. Keep that in mind when reading posts that are pro-Obama and nasty as ever.

It was Hillary who started and fought the Travelgate fight, it was Hillary who started and fought the Healthcare fight and it was Hillary who pushed Bill to invest in what became WhiteWater-gate. It was also Hillary who invested in the cattle futures allegedly turning $1000 into $100,000 in a very short period of time.

Looking back, all of the major scandals of the Clinton Administration with one exception (Monica) can be laid directly at her feet. Don't forget Monica was discovered in the course of all these other investigations caused by Hillary.

Hillary did not win any of those fights. Hillary reminds me of the person in a bar who is a horrible fighter, but because they are drunk, they don't realize they are losing fight after fight. Except in her case, we have been the losers.

Hillary started out with 120 million dollars, 200 Supers, 100% name recognition, a former President and Rupert Murdoch. Why can't Hillary close the deal?!?!

To: Mandelay---Perfect. I could not agree with your opinions more. Thank you for the post....

Why are Obama supporters so nasty? And there are many more of them posting comments on every site. Primarily because they are young with lots of time to sit on a computer. However, there are MILLIONS of voters who don't use their computers in different demographics that will NEVER VOTE OBAMA.

Hillary wants Obama to be fully "vetted", and is providing material to the media about Obama and his associations with Ayers. But this leaves a real question, what association is more real, Obama having a relationship with someone who was once an anti-war radical that used bombs to get his message out, or Hillary who once worked for those radical organizations when Obama was a mere child?

Tom Hayden, has an op-ed titled, "Why Hillary Makes my Wife Want to Scream". It is about Hillary's sanctimonious accusations towards Obama, while she herself was actively involved with radicals during the 1960's peace movement.

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

The writer strongly feels that it is time for the DNC to step in because Hillary's attacks are making it more difficult for any Democrat to in in the

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

So we can say the Hillary of yesterday is no longer what we are getting, if Democrats choose her to be the nominee. What the Democratic Party will get is a terribly divided party that makes winning at all costs the ultamite goal, while tearing apart the values that Democratic voters care about like peace, equality, justice and fairness. But isn't the point of electing a Democratic Leader in the fall that we will govern according to the Democratic values, over just holding on to the title?

Some may say, "that's just politics"! I don't want to think of politics as simply a blood sport, and I don't see how anyone can support a candidate that has spend so long fighting for what's right they have become what is wrong with politics. I feel that how you win is just as important as winning.

There is nothing in Obama's background that backs up his claim that he will "change" things. He was in the Illinois State Senate for 7 years. There's nothing in his record that stands out. I think it's strange that none of his colleagues or friends are saying anything about his accomplishments. One of his supporters was asked to name one of Obama's accomplishments and he couldn't name one. One of Hillary's accomplishments is the Children's Defense Fund. If you look at her bio on her website, it lists her accomplishments. If you look at Obama's bio on his website, there's nothing there.

Thank you Ernie! What you say is so true...the Obama bloggers are very nasty and not representative at all of what the general population thinks. was discovered as early as Iowa that Obama has a full staff of bloggers...people who are paid to say nasty things about Hillary Clinton. He has to pay people to negatively comment on his opponent. Truly disgusting!

You know something, one big huge reason I will never vote for Obama is the simple fact that his supporters are hateful and have nothing good to say. I am a Democrat, and now, I will never vote for Obama. The Democratic Party better pray that Hillary Clinton is the nominee, because if she is not, McCain will be the next President. I am so glad that I voted for Hillary in our Primary, and I will vote for her again in November. Wake up people, Hillary Clinton is by far the strongest candidate to go against John McCain. If you can't see that, then your blind. Hillary 08!

To the folks wondering why the Obama supporters posting are so prevalent and so nasty, it was discovered as far back as Iowa that Obama has a staff of folks who are PAID to blog. Yes, he pays people to get online and say nasty things about his opponent. They all get laptops and sit together in his headquarters in whatever state contest is happening at the time and they just blog away...filling up the comments sections online with their bitter and sometimes even vulgar vitriol. Very sad and very true.

I'm always amazed at how nasty Obama supporters are and reminded over and over again that they blog more than any other demographic group because they are YOUNG, UNEMPLOYED KIDS, for the most part. All the comments, blogs, etc. are not representative of our nation as a whole....there are MILLIONS of voters that will NEVER vote Obama that do not USE A COMPUTER. These comments to every political story are A MINORITY of voters. Keep that in mind when reading posts that are pro-Obama and nasty as ever.
Posted by: Ernie | April 27, 2008 6:36 PM

You're operating on some pretty far-fetched, fact-less assumptions there, Ernie. And I think the nastiness is rampant all the way around, including your contribution. I would like to know how you decided that most bloggers are "young, unemployed kids", because, my dear, last I checked my teeth are pretty long. But, go ahead and enjoy your generalizations and don't worry about posting something that adds to the discussion.

I wonder when this article from the LA Times is going to get any media attention. More evidence that Obama is just as deep into politics as usual as those he claims he's so much better than. What a sleazy hypocritical politician.,1,2764345.story

I got news for you put a person on the ballot that even looks connected to terrorists and you can kiss Nov goodbye. Hammas endorsed Obama. He sits on a board with Ayres. He launched his political career in his living room. He is in deep with Rezkco and his Iraq connections. Hillary is your only choice. or McCain will win. Read Chicago info and you will gain truth. Don't be foolish in your choice, you may regret it.

Hillary Clinton is the best in the business. If we donot have Hillary as the nominee...we will lose in November. This should not be about black or white.

Hillary is the most qualified person. Barack Obama appears to be a nice person. However, Hillary is the real deal.

I really get irritated when people say they trust Hillary when it comes to the economy and Iraq. Trust should be based on previous experience not what the candidate tells us. Clinton's resume includes the inability to manage her campaign finances to the point that she had to lend her campaign 5 million dollars for it to continue. This was the person who was the clear favorite up until that time was not able to control the inflow and outflow of funds from her campaign to remain solvent. She repeated that performance again in April. How can there be trust in the face of repeated failure in the management of a campaign budget when its size is dwarfed by the federal one.

Clinton has shown poor judgment in the Middle East. Her Iraq vote is widely publicized; her failure to read the government risk assessment before voting is not. That is neglect of duty. She trusted Bush when she gave him the right to go after the Republican Guard in Iran. Clinton has demonstrated that she is slow to learn and not someone with judgment.

Judgment is at issue with her and McCain’s idea of a gas tax holiday this summer. Those funds will be needed when we start to improve our infrastructure. Infrastructure improvement means jobs for working men and women. In the past it has been found that when there is a tax holiday the relief is shared by motorists and the oil companies who raise prices. This is not sound economic policy; this is pandering to the public.

I am not being critical of those who want Hillary we each have our own metric for president but I am flummoxed when the word trust is used to define Hillary when it comes to the economy and Iraq.

My guess is that the people who blog for Obama and are nasty are McCain supporters. Obama I would suspect would not be inspiring to the nasty.

My impression in the past has been that Clinton supporters are nasty. Maybe that is the response to opinions different than our own. For my edification please point out two nasty pro-Obama posts.
I think the word nasty would be more aptly used to describe Clinton than Obama, although I don't think either deserve the label. I am not an unemployed kid. I think the condescending comments speaks more about the poster than the subject of the post. Hope that is not misconstrued as nasty.

Read it and weep:
And then go to the Rezko watch section of the Suntimes.

I really had fun reading these comments tonite. It seems that the more the candidates go at each other, the more the commenters go at each other. And the media loves it. To Lori: I agree with your comments, but I infer from them that your point was that Iowans paid no heed to race, religion, age, or other demography when they voted for the person they felt would be best for the country. It was not until the media stepped in and started "slicing and dicing" the voter demographics that "trends" started grabbing headlines.And I also believe that many voters are not well informed, and tend to defer to the voting direction taken by the group they best fit into. Sad but a fact of politics. To Voice of Reason: Not only are your facts skewed and false (e.g., re: Dean's role and "new" rules) but your REASONING is also flawed. No "constitutional" rights were violated in Florida and Michigan under the scenario you paint. I teach law.

This is the third anti-Obama post, and totally out of mind at that, found on the baltimore sun in last 24 hours. Are you on Hillary's payroll?

Obama's going to jail;

What did he and Phyllis Schafly , er, Michelle smuggle outta da country in luggage and those big early 60's black muslim style little girl dresses?
Things a us attorney or interpol would like to see?

The thing that your analysis ignores with regard to "electability" is that letting the loser of the primaries steal the nomination would outrage millions of Democratic voters. That would result in millions of lost votes in November.

Also, John Kerry won the nomination in 2004 based almost entirely on the premise that he was the most "electable" candidate. He proceeded to lose against the worst and most unpopular President in US history, and it's now almost universally agreed that either Dean or Edwards would've been a stronger candidate.

Hillary is the best choice of the three candidates left standing- if one strictly looks at life experience, years in public service, complete voting record- and very importantly--vision and concrete plans and solutions for the serious issues confronting our nation- Hillary is the one.

Just go to the each of the candidates' websites- objectively- and compare and contrast.

I hope the voters in the next nine primaries do their homework and that the super delegates vote for the best candidate- regardless of their own political regard--

ANOTHER Obama donor got state contracts in exchange for campaign donations. Do you ChiTrib guys even get embarassed anymore when your sister paper, the LA Times, scoops you on Obama's dirty Illinois politics connections?
Do you even want to keep up the pretense that you're doing your job and vetting Obama?
I'm glad we have the LA Times because you guys have been ignoring his pay for play deals for four years. As reporters you should hang your heads in shame.
Robert Blackwell paid Obama $8,000 a month after Bobby Steele spanked Obama for state senate, money that eventually totaled $112,000. Then once he got elected, this: "Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin."
How embarassing for the Tribune that the LA Times continues to eat their lunch on the dirty Obama beat.

Let's see.....hmmmmm, who would be stronger toe to toe against McCain, Clinton or Obama?

I'll go with Bill over Michelle!


HRC will run in 2012. I just can't decide if it will be as a Democrat.

I am a teacher in Georgia. I voted for Hillary in the primaries. I have never been paid to post or speak. I have since given money to Obama's campaign because I believe that the Clintons are liars and have done more than their share to distroy the Democatic Party.

hillary will be the better candidate than obama. obama doesn't have the enough public service. three years and then he will be running for president? no way..... i like hillary, she makes more sense than barack.

BO can't do it in November! Why don't you people just wake up and realize that you have been following nothing more than empty blowhard who uses pretty words but is folds like a cheap suit when the heat is on. And it ain't even BEGUN to get hot in BO's kitchen yet!!! The republicans will shred any credibility he has left if he even makes it that far.

You all really better wake up fast and take a hard look at BO and quit deluding yourselves. He is not JFK, he is not MLK, he is not FDR...look at his words (from his books) and his record!!!

I know it hurts to be wrong, but its gonna hurt a whole lot worse later.

American people please get up. Did you see that McCain never attack Hillary, Why? You suppose to have the answer.

I can only tell you that if Obama is the candidate I will be voting Republican for the second time in my in my 38 year voting history. The good thing is that McCain will most likely be a one-term President, so Hillary can run again in 2012 if she doesn't get it this time. One way or another Obama's going home, either after the convention, or after the election. His chances of winning are worse than mine.

Just Words?! Clinton Says Actions Matter - They Do!

Paula Jones - LIE
BILL, not intentionally "RACE CARD" topic every primary day to capture more WHITE VOTES - LIE
BILL "NOT" Bombing other countries 7 times day before Monica's Court Appearance - LIE

Do you really want to VOTE for 8 more years of these?

I am amazed at how critical many BO supporters are of Hillary. I am a Hillary supporter, but I also really like BO and his plan for presidency. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him with pride in my heart and a spring in my step. Much of the platform which he runs on is about uniting the party and country. I wish his supporters would be less vile and more civil. Golly!

Why does Obama run from a FIFTH debate one on one for the undecided voters? Could it be he doesn't have the details of his plans memorized? It's hard without teleprompters, I know, but Hillary has proposed NO CAMERAS ON THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK, SO THE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE. WHAT THE HELL IS HE SO AFRIAD OF....A REPEAT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Yes, she is the better candidate when discussing her plans and answering questions. Too bad she can't play basketball and walk around looking cool all the time...she's more interested in leading this country in the right direction!

I'm going to go ahead and say that even though Hillary might not carry those "red states" in the midwest like Utah and Idaho, she can carry bigger more important swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, over Obama, because that is where the base of her democratic voters is.

We are getting sick and tired of every time Hillary Shouts, Screeches or Cries she feels she should have her own way.

We have had 21 TV Debates so far, that is quite sufficient we have seen enough of her lies, smears and negative campaigning.

Whatever "Spin" Dean and The DNC may try to make Barack Obama is well in the lead and has the Mandate of the Voters, if the Party did choose to go against the wishes of Voters they are heading for a November "CRASH"

It is no use saying this race should run until the end of June, the answer is clearly NO from Voters! we need a clear decision NOW!

Am I wrong of have they changed the rules again. At former nominating conventions, pledged delegates voted by rules set by the state selection rules *usually that means that hey are obligated to vote for the candidate they have been selected for. HOWEVER, if no candidate makes to over the top then a second vote is takin at the convention which by some rules releases the delegates and they vote their own conscience. Past conventions have taken several ballots to name the candidate. Since neither Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will likely have the elected delegates sufficient to go over the top, then another vote is taken and it's open to pick anyone they like. I know that is not what happened the last two times, but I haven't heard that they have done away with the second or third votes to determine the nominee. That's why they call it the nominating convention.
maybe I'm wrong and they changed the rules on this too.

Her basic approach is to behave ruthlessly and make Obama upset, standoffish, and awkward about her behavior. He is a far more thoughtful and decent-minded person than she, and he is repulsed by such behavior, as am I and many, many others.

Obama has genuinely tried to run a campaign of which he could be proud, a rare thing in American national politics, still pretty much in the Political Stone Age.

But Obama faces a terrible dilemma when confronted by an opponent willing to say close to anything to win. Hillary truly has proven herself an Appalachian throwback, a grinning political predator exactly in the tradition of Richard Nixon.

But although "playing the race card" is one thing a Democrat is not likely to do, I am encouraged that Gary Younge believes otherwise.

If that nasty piece of work, Hillary, manages to win the nomination, I can only wish John McCain, despite his many faults, wins. She has proven herself, in a fairly short period, every bit as loathsome as Bush.

It is unforgivable and shocking beyond words that she threatened the lives of eighty million people on the morning of the Pennsylvania primary. And her ad with Osama’s image is in the disgusting tradition of the infamous Willy Horton ad. These are the behaviors of a low-grade psychopath, the kind of individual who has been president for more than seven years.

The real question we have to ask is given what we have found out about Barack in the last few weeks would those people who did vote for him a few months ago vote for him now? The answer is probably no. This is about getting someone in to the White House who will at least attempt to help people and the best person to go up against McCain is Clinton. If you are a Democrat you have to do two things, pray the super delegates have the guts to ditch Barack and pray Clinton isn't lying when she says she's a changed woman. Fun and games right enough!!

why is everyone talking about who would most likely be the best "candidate" instead of who would most likely be the best "president" ?

the answer is -- hillary desparately wants the "who would be the best candidate ?" question to be THE main issue instead of "who would make the best president ?" and therefore hillary constantly steers the debate in that direction (24/7)

she does this because of all the obvious baggage she carries that would likely make her a poor president


she also steers the question in that direction because she can't pass obama in popular vote or elected delegates, so she has to make electabilty the excuse for superdelegates to over-rule the will of the voters


everyone knows bill C. would be a huge distraction if she were able to become president, everyone knows there would be trust issues from "day one" and everyone knows that a spirit of divisiveness would continue to permeate politics, everyone knows her health plan has zero chance of making it into law


the ONLY argument she can make for being a better president than obama is the experience argument - an argument which not only does NOT stand up to scrutiny for her but IF it is true that experience matters most, then we should all vote for mccain

if you love your country, you should be focusing upon who would most likely be best president of your country - and nothing else


Hillary is loathed more widely than some writers credit, and this loathing is now spreading into the Left, which has the option to cast a protest vote with Nader.

Also, McCain is going to make a strong appeal to those just left of center. He's already started this with his forgotten-things trip.

His party's Right has always accused him of being a closet Democrat, something I sincerely doubt, but I think he will be able to do a credible job of posing himself as a touch left of center on some issues.

At the same time, Hillary is terribly vulnerable with the background she has. Obama has been reluctant to bring such things up, but the Republicans sure won't, and they have a warehouse full of material to draw on.

Further still, while it is difficult for a man to treat a woman in public the way Hillary treats Obama, after sinking as low as she has, it will be far easier. Anyway, the Republicans are expert at innuendo and using stand-ins, as Hillary should know from the 1990s.

And no matter what some may say, I do believe in American-style campaigns, which are little more than duopoly advertising campaigns, that the unpleasant aspects of Hillary's persona will feature heavily.

She does have a voice that resembles finger-nails scratching a blackboard. She does say some surprisingly absurd things at times. She does make some genuinely goofy faces which have been captured by cameras.

And she has the burden of Bill. Who wants that creature stalking around the corridors of power again? Remember, even nice guy Al Gore blamed Bill Clinton for his 2000 defeat, reportedly in an ugly scene.

Lastly, Mr. Rove’s recent comments on the Democrats do tell us whom the Republicans view as the weaker candidate, and it ain’t Obama.

That is, unless Hillary keeps tossing crap the way she did in Pennsylvania.

Republicans are working with Hillary because they want things to remain the SAME. THEY DONT WANT CHANGE. If America rejects the Clintons, Republicans know they are next. This is a NO BRAINER, and the COUNTRY is speaking through this man. Folks who are tired of this same old stuff want CHANGE. But the old forces are entrenched in this War, Recession and Racism. Thats all the old politics are about. I want CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!

you all talk about the econmy,wars,health care,electability etc etc
but that is not my issue
my issue is
America needs a "fresh"start
and that is the only paramount issue for my vote
i dont want to put the "sex scandal" in the white house again
nor do i want to put a "vietnam war prisoner" in it
i am too proud an American to do that
having said that you know full well whom i am going to vote for
too bad he just happens to be black!
may God bless America!





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 "h" in the field below: