Clinton Responds To New Obama Ad
ABC’s Eloise Harper reports: Sen. Clinton reacted Friday night to Sen. Obama’s response ad.
Speaking to thousands of people outside on a breezy night in San Antonio, Clinton said, "Now my oppoent has just put up an ad touting his policy about Afghanistan. But I have one question — he was given an important responsibility in the Senate to chair. The committee that had responsibility for NATO, which is our ally in Afghanistan. But as your heard him in the last debate, he did not hold one substantive meeting to try to figure out what else we needed to be doing to win in Afghanistan, to get NATO more involved because as he said he was too busy running for president."
Clinton also had a slightly new variation on the "red phone" theme she had been stressing all day — bouncing off her new ad, entitled "Children."
"When crises come, and they do, we need a president and a commander in chief ready to make the tough decisions. When the telephone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, there isn’t a time for speeches, there’s no time for on-the-job training — you need someone with the strength and experience to make the decisions that have to be made."
Email



RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Let’s all be clear–there’s a huge bias against Clinton, right? Even though ABC hasn’t picked up MSNBC’s piece about Clinton’s donations she won’t return, even though ABC ran the ridiculous plagiarism story against OBAMA for 48 straight hours as their top story, even though, even though when same charges came against Clinton, ABC dismissed them as “Silly.”
The fact that Clinton is even considered to have a shot at winning (after losing 11 straight elections) proves that the only thing propping up her candidacy is, in fact, the media.
Posted by: kate | March 1, 2008, 4:13 am 4:13 am
Fear tacticks, very big ego, and self appreciation are the characteristics of HRC. She has to understand that she cannot be the CEO+COO and the Commander in Chief because of her lack of judgement and the mismanagement of her campaign and other “travelgate, filegate, etc.gates” in her life.
Posted by: BKMC | March 1, 2008, 4:19 am 4:19 am
Nice job hitting back at the wimp, Hillary. Glad to know there is at least one democratic candidate that understand the importance of foreign policy and has an actual knowledge of it. I also know you will continue to fight for the American people. Keep it up!
Posted by: Jake | March 1, 2008, 4:36 am 4:36 am
As a woman I find Hillary Clinton’s tactics deplorable. She is certainly not the person I want picking up the phone at 3 am. In fact I don’t want her picking up the phone at all. Not once during her entire campaign has she shown me that she has any integrity. If this election was based on who has the most ambition she would win hands down. Fortunately for the American people it is an election about who would best serve the American people–that person, hands down, is Barack Obama.
Posted by: Janet from NH | March 1, 2008, 4:38 am 4:38 am
I am so disappointed in Senator Clinton. I have patiently kept supporting her through California. As for the future; there are many other great DEM women to support.
Posted by: ann | March 1, 2008, 4:41 am 4:41 am
Let’s be clear: Obama talks about how he’d do things differently in Afghanistan, but when he had the chance as Senate Chairman he did nothing. It’s kind of like voting “Present” 130 times. I see a lot of ambition but I just don’t see results or action.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | March 1, 2008, 4:43 am 4:43 am
“GONNA” is Obama’s operative word. We are still waiting for him to pull the trigger on something, anything !!
Get it in gear Obama. Having a bunch of kids attending your rallies does not make you the frontrunner. You need real adults to support you.
Hillary ’08
Posted by: Bill Elliott | March 1, 2008, 4:48 am 4:48 am
Barack (or is it Borat?) has had fifteen months to hold a hearing on Afghanistan. Fifteen months and he has done nothing? Can we move that slowly to work on all the problems facing our country?
Posted by: LA | March 1, 2008, 4:48 am 4:48 am
FEAR POLITICS!
HILLARY SAYS THEY ARE NOT JUST FOR REPUBLICANS!
Posted by: john compton | March 1, 2008, 4:50 am 4:50 am
I would love to know why nothing is ever said about OBAMA. Is it because of his RACE or is it because the news rooms are afraid of being sued? Clinton is experienced and is ready for change as well as Obama. But anything she does is a NEGATIVE on the NEWS. Not OBAMA. I hope everyone who votes for OBAMA realizes what a mistake they are making. we will have difficult time with all other countries if he is elected because he is inexperienced and John Kerry is no better. He just wants to endorse him so he can have a shot at the vice pres position. I am young but I am not dumb
Posted by: sandy | March 1, 2008, 4:54 am 4:54 am
Finally, she is hitting back on this ridiculous voting issue Obama keeps putting out there. He says he would not have voted that way – really? If he had been in NY (like Hillary was), had been given the information that Congress was given (oops, he wasn’t there, was he), and had been even slightly paying attention to the news about Sadaam and the inspectors, I would have to question his judgement as to why the authorization to use force would not have been granted as a tool. We can all look back now and say that it was a bad idea – given what GWB did with it, but I think anyone has to dig deep and consider how they felt at the time. Besides, how would we know how he would vote – he never does when the going gets tough. In fact, for the vote on Iran recently, he did not even show up! Something so critical, and he did not even show up to vote! And now, he wants to point the finger! I do not expect my leaders to be perfect, I just expect them to lead!!!
Go Hillary!
Posted by: B Will | March 1, 2008, 5:01 am 5:01 am
Clinton is falling miserably. She has to realize that now. She is not the people’s favorite. She shouldn’t force her way to the White House. Aemrican people have spoken and their voice has been heard. It is time to unite the party and get ready for the Republican in November.
Posted by: I.A.T Smith | March 1, 2008, 5:04 am 5:04 am
Yeah Obama’s so concerned about Afghanistan. He thinks the US should have focused on Afghanistan because that’s where the bad guys are.
But wait, Obama hasn’t convened the senate committee that deals with Afghanistan in two years because he’s too busy running for President with no experience.
Yeah he really cares about Afghanistan, and catching al Quaeda just about as much as he cares about anyone else other than himself and his huge ego.
Go Hillary! You answer that phone!
Posted by: s.b. | March 1, 2008, 5:05 am 5:05 am
At international level W Bush has more friends than Bill Clinton, but Bill Clinton has more business relationships in other countries than W Bush. That is very much an indication of who the Clintons are. Obama is the hope for international community, that is why all the foreign countries and americans living abroad have given him their voice and their votes. HRC is in it for herself and for her husband and nothing else. She believes she is born to lead on Day One. Hillary has shown only bad or misjudgement and mismanagement during these primaries. Voting for Hillary or forMcCain is voting for a third term W Bush. Hillary has always voted with Republicans in the Senate especially her friend McCain.
Posted by: BKMC | March 1, 2008, 5:08 am 5:08 am
As a woman, I find Hillary refreshing and amazing. She is doing the fight that all women can relate to….except that she is exceptionally strong and fiesty. This is the kind of president I want in the whitehouse. Someone that is smart enough to push the boring concept of “solutions” forward….knowing that she won’t win the charismatic, fun contest but she’ll make real differences in the life of other. All this while she has shown a tenacious spirit and the audacity to push forward against all odds refusing to allow america to have to live with another 4 to 8 years of inexperience. Folks, HIllary is fight for us! she is fighting to regain the substance, knowledge and solution aspects of governement. She is fighting until the bitter end even with an overwhelming bias stacking up against her in the media…she is fighting to keep this country from fallen into the hands of a smooth talker who’s only experience thus far is how to talk a good talk. She’s fighting to show all of us that experience lives and breath in our daily lives and it lives and breath in government….she’s fighting so that this campaign does not become an entertaiment script but to be an election about content and issues with effects too far reaching to take a gamble on. HIllary 2008
Posted by: San Francisco, California | March 1, 2008, 5:13 am 5:13 am
Some people forget the highest responsibility as president is to PROTECT YOU from DANGER at all costs!!! If someone voted NO to enemy and gamble your life in the line, do you think it is good judgement, it is change????
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 5:16 am 5:16 am
When that call comes into the white-house at 3am….I want someone who has been a participant, witness and audience to enough events to gauge the situation with a solution oriented mind. I want someone who will not be surprise at anything and everything. I also find comfort in knowing that someone will have another someone sitting next to her who also have been a witness, a participant and an audience to much changes, events and national emergencies. The idea of the two clintons in the white-house does not frighten me one bit. The idea of the two clintons in the whitehouse gives me tremendous comfort knowing that my president and her first gent are both equally qualify to keep guard on the welfare and security of our country. Hillary 2008
Posted by: San Francisco, California | March 1, 2008, 5:19 am 5:19 am
Obama is a one trick pony. I was against the war, therefore I showed good judgement. He wasn’t in the Senate, wasn’t able to vote, didn’t have the intelligence that was provided to the people who did vote. If we are attacked, what will he do? No doubt he will give a speech, that should make the matter go away…
Posted by: Firefighter | March 1, 2008, 5:22 am 5:22 am
Obama is indeed a one trick pony. Keep your ears open to all his responses to all things. No matter if it is Iraq, the Economy, Critics on is relationship with Farakan, Critics on his realtionship with Rezko, His mediocre voting records….whatever it is, Obama always answered it with a focus on his speech against the war before he had any voting responsibility. Yet, once the reponsibility was his….he voted to fund the war. He implied he has no choice…really? I see a clear choice of taking a hard stand and vote for NOT funding the war. Wouldn’t that have been a bit more consistent with his anti-war message…woudn’t that have not more in line with his anti-war speech? The man is a hyprocrite at best and used car sales man running for president at the very worst.
Posted by: San Francisco, California | March 1, 2008, 5:28 am 5:28 am
When Obama did vote, he voted the same as Clinton in the Senate 90% of the time. When he differed, he voted with the republicans to give more money to energy companies (oil and nuclear), to give relief to banks and credit card companies, to keep people from being able to file class action lawsuits, and to give Peru its own NAFTA-like agreement. Obamites… you are being lied to… take the time to check the facts and realize he is dishonest. With Clinton, her campaign matches her voting record and experience. Search vote smart to find the unbiased website with all the facts you need to see for yourself!
Posted by: DCVoter | March 1, 2008, 5:34 am 5:34 am
Is it true he is always absent when its time to vote ? CNN at 8:15 this am they think so.And gee thats what they said about Bush when he was Gov.
Posted by: Bishop | March 1, 2008, 5:46 am 5:46 am
HILLARY is the only confident choice, B.O. is not experienced, I know you B.O. lovers hate that word, but it is absoluting shocking to me that it is not an issue for you.
Posted by: D | March 1, 2008, 5:50 am 5:50 am
For years the Dems wanted young people to get involved and now that they are people are complaining about who they are voting for. Let’s raise the voting age to 45 and above so the GOP will always win the White House. Would all you Democrats like that since you will vote for the other party if your candidate doesn’t win. Really makes a lot of sense since there is not a dimes worth a difference between Clinton and Obama.
Posted by: Nottheclintons | March 1, 2008, 5:52 am 5:52 am
i Think that Hillary and Barack are both Great. The reason that I am going to vote for Barack is because of Hillary’s vote on the war. I think that being a women she feared that she would appear weak if she opposed the war. She ended up appearing weak because she did vote for the war. There were a few people against going into Iraq and she should have showed her true strenght and voted against it. Obama 2008!
Posted by: pt | March 1, 2008, 5:55 am 5:55 am
most people vote for the best canidate, not the party, it depends on the issues that is important to you. my issue is experience, bo doesn’t have it.
Posted by: D | March 1, 2008, 5:58 am 5:58 am
OBAMA’S BAD JUDGEMENTS: 1) lets pull out of Iraq now and go back in tomorrow. 2) lets bomb Pakistan without their consent if we find that alqeada is there….no considerations that Pakistan is a nuclear weapon owner 3) voted ‘present’ when most of his colleagues fought to avoid sex shops from being set up next to schools 4) voted no when his colleagues tried to cap the credit card companies from raising rates 5) voted for the Cheney energy bill that has pillaged the tax payers money w/o much returns 6) opted to send out fliers noting a quote that his opponent did not make 7) opted to partner up in a real estate deal with a man under investigation of political fixing and money laundering. 8) Opted to take over 100K in donations from the same man who was still under investigation for political fixing and money laundering. 9) Opted to sustain a spiritual counseling relationship with a pastor who had proclaimed that his hero is L Farrakhan who promotes hate against whites and Jews. 10) Opted to criticize opponents of having close proximity with lobbyist when he had regular basketball games and poker games with lobbyist while in the IL legislature. OBAMA’S GOOD JUDGEMENT: 1)….But he made a speech against the Iraq war. Summary: One mediocre judgment do not equal “good judgment”
Posted by: Latasha | March 1, 2008, 6:00 am 6:00 am
The reason people want Obama over Hillary is because they see her as old politics as they should with after finding out she was not the front runner and was loosing then started the its not fair cry cry Michigan and Florida I’m going to sue boo hoo well I did not do or say it. It must be my campaign I have no say over that. Then about Hillary taxes, people are working on that I’m trying to run a campaign.
No ones buying any of it.
As for some comment by another poster Obama has kids voting for him being 18 and older and they are turning out in droves the adults as you like to call them are still not the deciding vote they are like everyone else important all of us are. My suggestion to you is adult or not you need a lot of growing up I also saw you support Hillary probably should have already seen that one coming.
Posted by: Jamie IN | March 1, 2008, 6:02 am 6:02 am
BO HAS VOTED FOR EVERY ISSUE ON THE WAR THAT HAS COME BEFORE HIM… THAT MAKES HIM FOR THE WAR!!!! he could have voted against the issues of the war and i think people would have respected him more on his stance. YOU FUND THE WAR, YOU ARE FOR THE WAR, RIGHT? his one vote would not have swayed the outcome one bit.
Posted by: D | March 1, 2008, 6:02 am 6:02 am
On the job training… give me a break. Prince Harry of England has more on the job training in command. At least he’s called in an airstrike. She hasn’t even done that. She didn’t even *read* the report issued on WMD in Iraq.
She’s running as a Republican now. Law and Order. Strengthening America. Congress is full of enemies of America…blah blah blah.
I don’t ever want to see her again after next Tuesday. Seriously.
Posted by: Ari | March 1, 2008, 6:05 am 6:05 am
Prince Harry just came home from the front lines, he was longing to go and still wants to go back with his men. All we have here in the USA is a bunch of young one that are whining every day about the war, they have no love for country or service.
Obama feeds on that with his war nonsense, maybe the young supporters should take a page out of Prince Harry’s book and understand what it is to be a patriot to ones country.
Posted by: SJ | March 1, 2008, 6:09 am 6:09 am
From my reading about when she was in the Whitehouse, unofficially, the staff was too scared to say anything to her. You think they are going to wake her up at 3AM?
And, if she gets points
for jetting around the world while First Lady…why don’t we put Paris Hilton up for the nomination?
Posted by: JB | March 1, 2008, 6:12 am 6:12 am
Latasha: Unbelievable. Where to start – every single one of your “bad judgement” instances is either WRONG or STUPID. But that’s the trick, isn’t it: put out SO MUCH BS that it would just take too long to answer it all. Is this the new Clinton strategy, simply pile on the baloney? Gosh, what a great candidate.
Let me tell you, if Clinton gets the nod through some greasy deal, just wait for the dumptruck. Fully vetted? What about those tax returns, what about Clinton’s deal with Kazakh dictators?
And tell me all about Clinton’s experience: FAILURE on health care, failure on standing up to Bush.
Posted by: Eric | March 1, 2008, 6:14 am 6:14 am
O has great experience for making change for this people. He actually made a lot change when he served as state senator in Illinois. The biggest change he made for his home town is: A BIG SCANDAL for his pal Rezko!!!! That is the change he made in his home town and he has promised you the same change in W.H….
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 6:14 am 6:14 am
She BLEW the Iraq question!!! Her judgement is faulty, plain and simple.
Posted by: cba | March 1, 2008, 6:18 am 6:18 am
It may be interesting to note that Sen. Clinton has accomplished little more than squandering tens of millions of dollars in the past 16 months on high priced advisors, pollsters, donuts and banquet spreads…the same kind of dole reserved for special interest groups and corporate advocates. To call out Sen. Obama is typically hypocritical of Sen. Clinton. When the phone rings at 3 a.m. I certainly don’t want the person answering the phone to be the same person that mismanaged a campaign which was, by her own admission, an inevitability. And, at the very height of hypocrisy, she now claims that with Sen. Obama having claimed 24 states to her 13, and after all but guaranteeing that she will win both Ohio and Texas, she now claims if Sen. Obama does not run the tables, there is something wrong with people’s confidence in his leadership. Personally, this is not the kind of rationale or judgment I want exercised by someone at the peak of their mental powers, much less, at 3 a.m., groggy and tired.
Posted by: H. Aslan Aslani-Far | March 1, 2008, 6:24 am 6:24 am
When enemy was about to bomb your home again, 77 senators voted YES to protect your life at all costs. 23 senators (including visitor O) voted NO because they liked to make sure the bombing was actually happened in your home first… It is so call “good judgement”: gamble your life in the life…
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 6:24 am 6:24 am
What a shame all these people are going to vote for Obama. Good God do they really believe this stupor that they are in…this daze will last another 10 months? It is like a new love affair fueled by lust. Now how long does that last? 6 months maybe? maybe? Then what happens? It fades…By then the Republicans will have destroyed Obama with their 527′s concerning Rezko and his minister of 20 years, his wife will make more mistakes because she really is a radical and McCain will sail in and take the Presidency. WAKE UP PEOPLE!! When Obama said something agains the war he wasn’t even a senator and when he got in the senate he said had he been a senator he wasn’t certain how he would have voted. Good God I was against the war and said so but I certainly don’t qualify to be President. Texas and Ohio think before you vote. He won’t win in the end. You are giving the Presidency again to the Republicans if you vote for him.
Posted by: Deborah | March 1, 2008, 6:28 am 6:28 am
For all the experience that Mrs. Clinton says she has, tell me “what has she done” ?. Tell me what happen when she was given the task to lead health care reform (it was a distaster). In addition to her lack of experience, Mrs. Clinton lacks both the leadership and integrity to lead this nation – she is a lighting rod, that divides people (rather than bring them together)
Posted by: bob hayes | March 1, 2008, 6:32 am 6:32 am
Obama is backing off on his Iraq withdrawal plans as well. Maybe he realizes that talk is easy, action is hard. I am glad that young people are taking an interest in politics. I started by following Bobby Kennedy when I was in college. You have to realize, though, that you need to know what you are doing. You can’t blow through foreign relations with a snappy speech and it is for sure that those dictators that he wants to sit down with will not be worried about being politically correct and offending him. Sure, he didn’t vote for war in Iraq; he wasn’t even in the Senate.
Posted by: KC+1701 | March 1, 2008, 6:40 am 6:40 am
Hi Hill, quit the race, would you?
Posted by: ablanche | March 1, 2008, 6:43 am 6:43 am
Why don’t some of you spend some time doing a little investigation into University of Chicago hospital where M. Obama use to work and the circumstances around that appointment, it will make for a good read.
Posted by: SJ | March 1, 2008, 6:46 am 6:46 am
“Now, one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope”
Bill Clinton, 2004
Posted by: hoosier | March 1, 2008, 6:47 am 6:47 am
And let’s see, where was Clinton when making this statement? Was she in her Senate office, doing the work for the people of New York?
No. She was in San Antonio.
Why would a New York senator be in San Antonio? Oh, right, she’s running for president.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 6:55 am 6:55 am
ZWith Obama we’ll all be hoping for a long, long time. Without his teleprompter and prepared speeches, he isn’t quite as motivational or as seemingly astute about this country. He’s been insulting the Wash DC politicians now for many months, yet he thinks he can reach across the aisle and those people he’s been insulting will just reach right back without hesitation. Changing the way business is conducted in DC will take more than 8 years, and, quite frankly, that’s the least of the worries this country faces right now.
Posted by: rojo | March 1, 2008, 6:57 am 6:57 am
bob hayes – if you really want the answer, take the time to educate yourself… dont read the candidate websites and MSM articles for your facts (they are all biased)…
Posted by: DCVoter | March 1, 2008, 6:57 am 6:57 am
I find it amazing that Hillary complains that Obama says he was too busy running for president to hold meetings on Afghanistan, but says she’s too busy to release her tax returns.
Posted by: kathy | March 1, 2008, 6:59 am 6:59 am
IAT. Give me a break, “the voice have been heard”… 20 some million voices have been heard and only a couple hundred thousand separate the two candidates. What happens to my voice or the voice of the goo people of Tx, Oh, Pa, RI, Vt etc etc… you are trying to silence many. many people. Is it because you have to get this locked up before more dirt comes out?
Posted by: Chipo1965 | March 1, 2008, 7:04 am 7:04 am
kathy – the law says all Americans have until mid April to file a return or extension – she has the same rights as every American, when you are rich with a heavly diverse portfolio you pay people to do the taxes and accounting and they have other clients too i am sure, she has filed per law the necessary income disclosures as a Senator, Obama hasnt released all of his returns (especially those that would reveal he couldnt not afford the house he bought without the tainted money that is coming out in the investigations related to Rezko and his backers), McCain has not released his tax return either… there is really nothing to be gained as a voter by looking at any candidate tax returns so this is all media and campaign hype designed to distract the voters from real issues
Posted by: DCVoter | March 1, 2008, 7:06 am 7:06 am
O is a combination of preacher and the same power-hunger. He copied the inspiration from his church and used the same political tricks to mis-lead people: I am the one, only one to save you!!! Just pray US won’t be another Gemeny in 30-40′s…
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 7:07 am 7:07 am
You Democrats had better start asking yourselves, “What does Obama really believe?” Right now this guy is a chalkboard. Write anything you want on the board, because it can be erased at a convenient time.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is both a liar and a corrupt politician. She is worse than Obama.
McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing. There is no way to predict how he might react as President and I don’t trust him.
Posted by: Bob | March 1, 2008, 7:10 am 7:10 am
Chipo – just the way it is. Obama has a significant lead in pledged delegates. Clinton needs to net 60-70 pledged delegates on Tuesday just to have a shot at getting back into this thing.
If she doesn’t, the chorus calling for her to drop will only get louder. And that call, by party leaders, began shortly after Virginia. Its slowly been making its way into the public domain after Wisconsin via statements by Nancy Pelosi and others.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 7:12 am 7:12 am
Paul, if you think the race is about delegate count, you are just following the same old politics: make people vote for me and gain my power. The race is about who will be the best person to lead our troubling counrty!!!
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 7:16 am 7:16 am
Paul, I guarantee if Hillary wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, even by the smallest margins she will go on to take Pennsylvania. The “pledged delegate count will be close, the “Automatic delegates” will stay (other than the people with no back bone like Lewis) …She will rightfully stay in the race. Vermont we all know will be Barracks.. go figure. It’s the big MO and thats what either candidate will need going forward after Tuesday. It all comes down to this!
Posted by: Chipo1965 | March 1, 2008, 7:19 am 7:19 am
No-good: That’s a nice talking point, but I think the delegate count is the reality that will drive the nomination.
Were the Giants the best team? I think most NFL fans would agree they weren’t. But at the end of the Superbowl, that didn’t matter, because they had more points.
That analogy isn’t meant to concede that Clinton is a better candidate than Obama, but just to merely point out that whether she is or isn’t, its delegates that will determine the nominee.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 7:22 am 7:22 am
I couldn’t agree more with Kate. All along the media has been proping her up. The equivlant of millions of dollars in free advertizing. Perhaps you also noticed that John Edwards got very little time from the media. It looks like they wanted it to be between Clinton and Obama. It’s just not money that gets a person elected, but to even perhaps a larger extent, it is the media. That’s a lot of power!
Posted by: Brian | March 1, 2008, 7:24 am 7:24 am
The fickle power base in the DNC will support whoever they need to to win the election in November. The fickle Automatic Delegates will back whoever they have to…they will fall in line for the party. All I am saying is that maybe we shouldn’t be in such a hurry. I have heard a lot of things about Barrack in the past few days that have opened my eyes… Have you seen what happens to a grape in the hot Texas sun? It’s a long hot road to the convention and the election. Are you sure your candidate can withstand the heat?
Posted by: Chipo1965 | March 1, 2008, 7:26 am 7:26 am
Tony Blair British P.M
also believed Bush intelligence on
Iraq.
now there are thousands of young
british men&women fighting your war
even Prince Harry.While most of U.S.A
YOUTH,ARE SPEWING VENOM ON THE WEB.
WHEN THEIR NOT “BOPPING WITH BARACK”
EDUCATED U.S.A.4 O.B DONT THINK SO!!!!,
Posted by: dee | March 1, 2008, 7:26 am 7:26 am
Paul, you are absolutely correct!! People just pick the one who can gain more points than who will be the best to make our country better…. If your guys agree on it, that is called “the change” you promised: the same old game!!
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 7:27 am 7:27 am
Delegates come in two flavors. Pledged and Automatic. and even a pledged delegate can change their vote if they feel the candidate they are supporting is not the right choice. When it comes down to it I am a Democrat and will support my party. All I am saying is wait.
Paul.. the football analogy stinks. this is not a game and it is not decided on the athletic skill of an individual player. It is a team effort. Obama is not a team player, he is that star quarterback that thinks he won the super bowl alone. Because that is what he will do… “When he is President of the United States of America” – ugh, maybe we can ask him to drop that line? It is really off putting to hear that every two minutes in a speech
Posted by: Chipo1965 | March 1, 2008, 7:33 am 7:33 am
Where is Tony Blair today? He was rejected by the British people because of his lies and bad judgement about Irak. The same thing should have happened to W Bush, McCain and Hillary. America has the opportunity to do the noble thing by rejecting McCain and Hillary like the British people have done to Tony and Cherry
Posted by: BKMC | March 1, 2008, 7:41 am 7:41 am
AMERICAN MEDIA SELECTS THE CANDIDATE
AND THE PEOPLE VOTE WITH IGNORANCE UNFORTUNATLY.
Posted by: dee | March 1, 2008, 7:48 am 7:48 am
I think for Obama to even hint that he is better than Hillary to be commander in chief is laughable. He just has no experience and I think he is still a fairy tale. Voters may have other issue with Hillary but as far as experience counts, Obama is nowhere close. It would be the biggest mistake for the democrats to pick Obama unless they want to ask Bush to give the keys of the White House to McCain.
Posted by: John Prescot | March 1, 2008, 7:50 am 7:50 am
Chipo – “the football analogy stinks. this is not a game and it is not decided on the athletic skill of an individual player. It is a team effort. Obama is not a team player, he is that star quarterback that thinks he won the super bowl alone.”
I think the football analogy was pretty good, given the point I was making.
I also disagree Obama isn’t a team player. Seems to me the campaign team he assembled is running a pretty solid effort, while I wouldn’t say the same for Clinton’s team.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 7:58 am 7:58 am
People blamed Bush to start the War. The fact is: it was US senate to authorize the War. 77 senators voted YES to protect your life. It was majority of people’will: to protect people from Danger at all means.. O and other 23 voted against the people’s will..
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 8:00 am 8:00 am
Tell me – besides her husband being President of the United States – tell me what Mrs. Clinton has done to make the case that she is ready to be CEO of the largest organization in America? when has she brought people together?
Posted by: bob hayes | March 1, 2008, 8:04 am 8:04 am
John Prescott – I disagree. Its not laughable to state Obama would be a better commander in chief, and in fact I think a compelling case for that statement can be made.
First, from what I’ve seen (and I’ve been watching for a year), Obama knows existing U.S. foreign and security policy better than Clinton.
One example – the use of nuclear weapons. Obama knows it has never been U.S. policy to consider use of these weapons against non-governmental organizations. That’s why he said using them against terrorist targets wasn’t on the table. Clinton responded we should never take these weapons off the table.
Hers is the usual talking point, when talking about the Soviet Union. It isn’t clear she understood the distinction, or the half century of history of U.S. nuclear policy.
Second, there is already such a strained relationship between the military and Hillary Clinton (even worse than with Bill Clinton), obvious problems could result. I’m a retired Marine officer, and from what I’ve seen, she wouldn’t be first choice among military officers as commander in chief.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 8:04 am 8:04 am
People blamed Bush to start the War. The fact is: it was US senate to authorize the War. 77 senators voted YES to protect your life. It was majority of people’will: to protect people from Danger at all means.. O and other 23 voted against the people’s will..
Oh, sorry, O was not qualified to vote yet, he just stood by…
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 8:09 am 8:09 am
The media will keep this sham alive as long as they possibly can. Why???
Money/ Ratings. Good thing too what with having just gone through a writers strike & whatnot.
Posted by: Chapman | March 1, 2008, 8:10 am 8:10 am
You want to know how Hillary handles the subject on military matters? Check the video of Senate hearings with General Petraeus discussing the surge in Iraq. The woman is phenomenal! Not only does she have command of the issues, she knows what is going on. No more will George Bush and Cheney be able to manipulate the CIA data regarding weapons of mass destruction to get a vote on possible war. Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and others believed that Bush would use inspectors first, and work with the UN. He did not. They manipulated and skewed the data on Iraq. No more will they have an opportunity to scare the American public about the battle of terrorism. She and Obama both voted for support for the troops. Obama cannot hide behind the fact that he was against the war before he came into the Senate. So was I. What matters is how he voted when he came into the Senate, and how he conducted meetings in an important Senate committee concerning NATO and the war in Afghanistan–ZILCH!
He is not ready. Hillary is the most knowledgeable, prepared, and experienced candidate in the race. She does the hard work. She studies all of the hard issues, and she is tough!
Posted by: georgia | March 1, 2008, 8:21 am 8:21 am
God I can’t wait for Tuesday.
Maybe Hillary will get her rear handed to her so bad she’ll have no choice but bail. The lies being repeated over & over by Clinton, McCain, & the Media are repulsive. That’s how power always reacts to popular People movements.
Plant seeds of doubt & squash it.
This time the People will win…
Posted by: Kerclackey | March 1, 2008, 8:23 am 8:23 am
Paul – good to see you posting.
I am not sure what evidence you have to support your assertion that the military and Senator Clinton are at odds. As of yesterday, 25 flag officers support her candidacy.
Posted by: DCVoter | March 1, 2008, 8:26 am 8:26 am
Hillary and Barack would both make Great presidents. The democrats really had a great crop of candidates to choose from unlike the republicans who have 1 half-decent candidate in McCain. The rest of GOP candidates were herendous. After Tuesday hopefully Hillary will do what best for her part and bow out gracefully. People are tired of her negativity. Obama 2008! Fired up & READY to go…
Posted by: pt | March 1, 2008, 8:35 am 8:35 am
In reality she brings up some solid, sound points. When your a Jr.Member of the Senate, each year brings you more seniority, and with that more Difficult task and more responsible positions.
Afghanistan- A extremely important issue. We have your boys and girls over there, fighting, and giving their lives for this country and our allies.
Mr Obama – by not taking the time – to participate, shirked his responsibility
to his job, the people who elected him, his country, his government, and above all the men and woman who serve their countries.
His own personal agenda was more important, Than his job.
In the reality Of the world I live in. If that was you or me, Not showing up for the job, and not doing the job when we were there. Yep, We would of been FIRED, not considered for a promotion.
*shrugs*
Posted by: seah | March 1, 2008, 8:38 am 8:38 am
Reply to Chapman:
Hillary can’t manage her own campaign, how can she manage the most powerful country in the free world. I hope she is not as careless with the tax payers money as she was with her campaign money. Wasting $90,000 on sandwiches during Iowa caucus or staff staying in five star hotels on the campaign trail. Just a small example of what her administration will look like. Be careful what you wish for you just may get it (her).
Posted by: March | March 1, 2008, 8:44 am 8:44 am
I voted the Clinton duo in the 90′s. But when will they JUST GO AWAY? I guess we need to party like it’s 1992….Lord have mercy on us and just make them go away!
Posted by: John Compton | March 1, 2008, 8:46 am 8:46 am
Look at what G.W.Bush’s experience has gotten us. It appears to me experience is over rated in Washington,DC. It’s time to try something different whether it be McCain or Obama. Enough is enough of the Bushes and Clintons
Posted by: Smith | March 1, 2008, 8:54 am 8:54 am
There is a tremendous bias at ABC News in favor of Hillary. Charlie Gibson did a piece on Monday night on Obama’s voting record. I don’t believe he did one on Hillary. And the lady on the view says they are biased against Hillary. That is a piece of crap.
Posted by: borninkl | March 1, 2008, 9:05 am 9:05 am
DC Voter: “I am not sure what evidence you have to support your assertion that the military and Senator Clinton are at odds. As of yesterday, 25 flag officers support her candidacy.”
Just anecdotal evidence, DC Voter. But enough of it that I can say with some confidence my point is accurate.
I’m a retired Marine and now work on a Marine base as a civilian. Both from my time in the Marines and from the e-mails I see circulating now, I’m pretty sure the military in general is pleased to see Obama knock her out of the running.
If I could characterize the “military” position on Obama, it might not be too much better than it is on Clinton, on issues. But in terms of personal factors, I think most would prefer Obama.
Don’t get me wrong. McCain is going to heavily win the military vote.
My choice for a running mate is Tony Zinni, which will mitigate this advantage has McCain has among military voters, and among those who aren’t military but who vote primarily on national security issues.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 9:10 am 9:10 am
People blamed Bush to start the War. The fact is: it was US senate to authorize the War. 77 senators voted YES to protect your life. It was majority of people’will: to protect people from Danger at all means.. O and other 23 voted against the people’s will..
Oh, sorry, O was not qualified to vote yet, he just stood by…
When president swear to office: the first sentences he read are: protect your country and fellow people…
77 senators did right thing to vote YES to protect this country. It was Bush Adm failed to end it soon. Now Mr. O turned the failure of Bush Adm to against his 77 fellow colleuges: you see, I has good judgement: I am right, you are wrong!! What a dirty trick!!
If O is nominated by chance, he will be crashed by Repulicians: he claimed No to protect people; he has not experience to lead country out of recession, what else he has? A promised change: Another Rezko Scandal in H.W……
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 9:11 am 9:11 am
this is politics – in the end for me personally experience matters – i pose a question – would anyone out there put a person with lets say 4 yrs experience out of school in charge of ge capital or any other blue chip company? do i like any of the candidates – no – however a choice has to be made and for me its experience – so be it hillary v. mccain – i will need to watch the debates to decide who to vote for – be it obama v. mcain – all i need to do is show up on election day and vote for mccain and these comments are from an independent – we all have an issue that makes us vote the way vote -
Posted by: renata pestic | March 1, 2008, 9:22 am 9:22 am
renata – bad example. Outsiders are brought in to run large corporations all the time. These people often have no experience in the given industry.
They are brought in to bring a change of direction or a new type of judgment, with the understanding that a mechanism exists to handle all the details of that particular company in that particular industry.
Sorry, but you’re Obama’s point.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 9:27 am 9:27 am
When it comes to covering BO, the press is acting as a slice of our society. They’re (as we are) habitually trying to even out the playing field – aka affirmative action mentality. Not sure if America’s enemies will spot it a handicap when BO runs the country.
Posted by: esvida | March 1, 2008, 9:27 am 9:27 am
Gorgon – I think the tougher situation will be Wednesday morning, if Hillary to win three of the four states (including both large states) and then the campaign realizes it won’t be enough.
Then the pressure from the DNC to drop out ramps up, at a time when many of her supporters may not understand why winning means losing. That’s when the danger of a real party split starts to develop.
Its also why party insiders like Pelosi and Dean began talking to the Clinton campaign weeks ago, after Virginia, about folding up the tent. They recognize this possibility.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 9:30 am 9:30 am
I worry that if Hillary gets the nod she will lose to McMore-War in the Fall. All the polls shows that Barack does much better against McMore-War. Besides do we really want to have the oldest elected president ever at this critical point in our history. Even pilots have to retire at 60. Hillary do the right thing after Tuesday and bow out. We do not need the GOP screwing up things for another 4 years. Obama 2008!
Posted by: pt | March 1, 2008, 9:32 am 9:32 am
Everyone talk about experience! These politcians have been in Washington,DC forever and have done nothing. What is your definition of experience? Same old same old, look what that has gotten us. If you like the status quo then vote Hillary. I hope you get Hillary, I promise you the republicans will not let her do anything. Four years of shear gridlock. That’s a fact…
Posted by: March | March 1, 2008, 9:32 am 9:32 am
Obama says it his good judgment that matters, well Obama just pi##ed off America’s largest oil supplier, Canada even before he becomes president. Judgement: Call Canadian officials and say heads up on NAFTA, but we really don’t mean it. Then deny everything when found out.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 9:32 am 9:32 am
Obama has ducked making a decision on almost every important issue he has addressed. In the Ill. legislature, he cast several votes that went with the status quo and then to appease his supporters claimed he had pushed the wrong vote button by mistake. The LA Times reported that he did this several times. He’s a Pepsodent grinning waffler who has won over young voters who have no interest in or understanding of the issues, but like voting for a rock star. America was much better off when these people were too busy listening to itunes and popping their zits to make it to the polls.
Posted by: LAGuy | March 1, 2008, 9:37 am 9:37 am
Wil – there is more to this story than meets the eye, I think. First off, the media outlet is now reporting that the Clinton camp made the same thing. And yet all parties – the Canadians who reportedly called, and both the Obama and Clinton campaigns – are saying such calls never happened.
I don’t know what to make of it.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Wil prove it! Canada said it didn’t happen. Same old lies,give us your sources. Same old Bill and Hillary tricks. Doesn’t work anymore.
Posted by: Smith | March 1, 2008, 9:39 am 9:39 am
Please reopen NAFTA. Please. I live in Fort McMurray, Alberta, home of the 500 billion oil sands complexes. We ship 1.5 million barrels a day to you. Four more pipelines are being built from our plants to the states, plus the Americans are building two pipeline through my province from Alaska. None of the oil is for us. Our oil. Open NAFTA please because we will put this garbage to a stop quicker that you can say yes. No one up here wants to ship south. We want to deal with China and India, better prices. BTW, up here Canadians are furious at your special access to our oil. Please. Please. Reopen NAFTA.
Posted by: Canada | March 1, 2008, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Enough of the Clinton’s and the Bush’s. Time to try something different.
Posted by: Tim | March 1, 2008, 9:43 am 9:43 am
Smith, Paul, the Canadian embassy had no choice but to answer that no contact was made or be accused of getting involved in the internal politics of a foreign nation. However, the Canadian Prime Minister said in Parliament, Friday Feb. 29, 2008, that should Americans reopen NAFTA he will put oil on the table. Something happened here and from the Prime Ministers tone and words he seems angry.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 9:47 am 9:47 am
Reply to: obama—-YIKES !!!
Contribute to her campaign, so that they can waste my money like they are going to waste the taxpayers money if she’s elected. Lavish spending through out the campaign. How do you plow through a $100 million and still trail in everything.
Posted by: Renee | March 1, 2008, 9:53 am 9:53 am
Money to Hillary now is money down the drain. Democrats should support Barack now, looking ahead to the election in the Fall. Obama 2008!
Posted by: pt | March 1, 2008, 9:55 am 9:55 am
Perhaps you did not check your facts Renee. Released figures show Obama is outspend Clinton 4 to 1.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 9:56 am 9:56 am
Reply to Wil:
What do you mean they had no choice? They could tell the truth if it really happened. China is waiting in the wings to buy Canada’s oil and at a Premium. Canada is not worried about not being able to sell their oil.Again please name your source.
Posted by: Smith | March 1, 2008, 10:01 am 10:01 am
KAte your really not too smart are you. Gosh even SNL makes fun of the fact that Clinton gets the short end of the stick , but here are all the OBAMA CRY BABIES trying to tell us that it’s the other way around.
Posted by: galloway | March 1, 2008, 10:03 am 10:03 am
True Obama—YIKES!!! She will need that money for all the investigations her administration would be under if she’s elected. Just like the 90′s all over again?
Posted by: Renee | March 1, 2008, 10:05 am 10:05 am
Renee,
You need to read some facts b4 u post!
Obama has spent over 8 million more in the last 2 weeks then clinton!
The guy brags about it all the time. It the reason why he is shelfing the lie he told the public that he would use public financing in the general election.
The Wall Street Journal today is now debunking Obamas lie about not getting lobbist money.
The man is a fraud and the more this election goes on the more it shows.
Houston Press has an article on their website about Obama’s Reporter from Chicago , check it out. very well written.
Posted by: werdup | March 1, 2008, 10:07 am 10:07 am
I’m in Texas my neighborhood is flooded with Hillary signs. Were not tainted.
I also went to vote yesterday and saw a black man almost kicked out because he would not let his wife vote unless he was standing next to the vote’s booth watching her do it. He wanted her to vote Obama!
Strong arm crap like that is why Obama and his 3000 paid college students who blog for him on this sites have to be ousted!
People need to stop reading all the main stream media and start reading the smaller news papers. People the majority of the main stream media is owned by the sam company , why do you people fall for this ???
Posted by: Obo | March 1, 2008, 10:12 am 10:12 am
Smith here is a small snippet of Canadian news. I’ve been following Canadian officials in the Canadian parliament as I live close to border. From their Prime Minister and Cabinet officials no one is directly saying they confirm but their words and tone suggest but talking heads up there suggest it happened. Something nuts is going on up there.
“However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.
During a candidates’ debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders — Obama and Hillary Clinton — suggested they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren’t renegotiated.
The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton’s words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday.”
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
obama—-YIKES !!!
No ones trying to disenfranchise anyone. When you get in the booth vote for whom ever you please. If she gets the most vote she wins. I think she needs to shed more tears. It seemed to work in New Hampshire. More crying please, more crying…
Posted by: Tom | March 1, 2008, 10:13 am 10:13 am
obama—-YIKES !!! Was he not one of two presidents to ever be impeached, but no wrong doings found?
Posted by: Renee | March 1, 2008, 10:16 am 10:16 am
So far as preparedness, the Clinton campaign went into hiberation for two weeks after super Tuesday. Would the Presidency be any different?
Posted by: Jay | March 1, 2008, 10:17 am 10:17 am
Here is the media bias:
1. If Hillary won 10 in a row, Media would say “Get out Barak”, unlike the support Hillary is enjoying after 11 straight miserable loss.
2. HARDBALL now a days discussed what the Clinton campaign disucssed all day: How ca n Hillary come back.
3. Tina Fey (an biased supporter) of SNL made a show to draw sympathy for Hillary by crying foul on media bias which is false.
Posted by: moeen | March 1, 2008, 10:21 am 10:21 am
werdup
She has ran a flawed campaign. This was suppose to be over on the first Super Tuesday. I’m ready to vote for a women president, just not this women.
Posted by: Tom | March 1, 2008, 10:23 am 10:23 am
Renee it’s Hillary running against Obama. But if you want to talk about their mates then Michelle is no love bunny either. You sure you want to go there? I don’t, but if you do I’ll wait to respond. Or would you like to talk Rezko and company we can discuss that as well, or do you want to talk policy of the candidates themselves. Your choice. I’ll wait.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 10:27 am 10:27 am
I’m afraid, in the end, it’s still a fairy tale. Yes, ya’ll keep believing in it!
Posted by: Fairy Tale | March 1, 2008, 10:28 am 10:28 am
Reply to cmc
Get all the petitions you like. Have one on every website. She is not well liked, face the facts. If she was likable the votes would not be this close. She is very divisive. The DNC knows if she gets the nomination that would certainly excite the republican base as never before.
Posted by: Renee | March 1, 2008, 10:32 am 10:32 am
Paul – I agree the majority of military voters are going to, as always, vote Rep but I think the ones who vote Dem will vote Clinton over Obama. Just my opinion based on experience like you.
Posted by: DCVoter | March 1, 2008, 10:33 am 10:33 am
Several posters have asked me to explain why I think the Dem dream ticket is the only ticket that can win
the WH. Does Clinton need Obama? Does Obama need Clinton? If we look at the electoral picture – yes. That is of course, if the Dems want to beat the Reps. Superdelegates will be looking hard at this. Here is why:
The experts (in all their conventional wisdom) tell us the battleground states are the ones that will determine who wins in Nov. Predictions show the states split up like this:
Red States – (primary wins for Obama or Clinton are meaningless)
WY, ID, UT, NE, OK, AK, ND, KS, TX, MT, SD, IN, MS, GA, SC, LA, TN, AZ, WV, AL = 160
Blue States – (primary wins for McCain or Huckabee are meaningless)
MD, DC, NY, VT, RI, MA, WA, DE, CA, HI, ME, MN = 150
Battleground States (Dem 2004) -
NH, WI, PA, OR, IL, CT, NJ, MI = 102
Battleground States (Rep 2004) -
AR, MO, VA, CO, FL, NV, IA, OH, NM, KY, NC = 126
Now you can bounce numbers around all you like based on the voter turnouts (not the idiotic caucus numbers the MSM is showing you). Have fun shuffling!
Posted by: DCVoter | March 1, 2008, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Yes, Mr O has run a very effective campaign. He plotted this since day one he entered politics. He was looking opportunity to gain his power and tried to turn all issues into his favor.. He is very smart but a true politician who is just another power-hunger…
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 10:35 am 10:35 am
obama—-YIKES !!! and Wil
Oh you mean they weren’t co-presidents in the 90′s? The way Hillary takes credit for the 90′s and her 35 years of experience I thought they were co-presidents. I guess maybe I was wrong. She only take credit for the good things and flip flops like hell on everything else. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind if you like the scandal riddled 90′s give her your vote.
Posted by: Renee | March 1, 2008, 10:41 am 10:41 am
Thank you Renee. Isn’t it strange, you accuse Clinton of being divisive, yet the very thing you accuse Clinton of is the very thing you are doing yourself, being divisive. Furthermore, for 35 million dollars, which the republicans used to attack President Clinton when he was in office, should anyone give me that amount I could destroy almost everyone blogging on this site about something.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 10:48 am 10:48 am
wil,
You didn’t respond my first two points. Good that you agree with them or cannot deny that.
On the SNL issue: Tina Fey turned up the volume of Hilary’s crying foul by falsely mocking the media that it biased….boohoo media is biased against me vote for me….
Posted by: moeen | March 1, 2008, 10:52 am 10:52 am
Hi, Moeen, even you gotta admit somewhere in your mind that Obama does get a free ride by the press. On the other hand, my wife is mad at me for not getting out and shoveling. I think she’s one of those pushy Hillary supporter who don’t understand men stuff. Give me some moral support there Moeen. I’ll get her to read it if you do.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 10:59 am 10:59 am
Hillary, you’re a disgrace, quit the race.
Posted by: ablanche | March 1, 2008, 11:10 am 11:10 am
“Let’s all be clear–there’s a huge bias against Clinton, right?”
Nope, just more Clintonian FAIRY TALES.
Check your local paper and or any paper for that matter:
EVERY SINGLE DAY the front page has a story like “Clinton camp says Obama is weak on terror” or “Clinton slams Obama over health care”
Why is this news, as opposed to one-sided propaganda?
I think the press has been unfairly co-opted by Clintons team, so much so that no one notices that the front page is dominated by the Clinton Machine’s spin:
“media bias”
Supposed Jewish questions
Somali photo
Plagiarism
Health care
Reagan quote
on and on …
Posted by: Mark | March 1, 2008, 11:10 am 11:10 am
Just in case Hilary Clinton does not know,
AFGHANISTAN IS BUSH BABY!
And it is not like Hilary Clinton isn’t ALSO neglecting her Senate duties to campaign?
Matter of fact, Clinton runs such a shoddy campaign, she should have more time to spend in the Senate?
Imagine, Hilary can’t even run an efficient and effective national campaign FROM WAY IN FRONT; yet Hilary Clinton deludes herself that she can lead a whole nation of 300,000,000? lol
As soon as the Obama Movement drives the final stake in the hard of Hilary the w, there will be time enough to give Bush a hand with Afghanistan, WHICH THE MAD MAN WILL REFUSE!
Posted by: New Yorker | March 1, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am
obama is unpredictable and irresponsible. He will be another version of gwbush!!! He would bring disgrace to this country, just like he sees his full name and his photos taked in his formal visit as a us senator.
Wake up!!!
Posted by: doug | March 1, 2008, 11:43 am 11:43 am
IT AIN’T OVER TIL IT’S OVER.
GIVE THEM HELL, HILLARY!!!!
Posted by: questioner | March 1, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Once again – what has Mrs. Clinton done, besides be wife to Bill Clinton, to show that she can be CEO of the largest organization in a America ? How was her leadership on leading the efforts to reform health care (a disaster) ? how has she managed her campaign (poorly) ? How has done in uniting people in this country (she is a divider / not a uniter)
Posted by: Bob Hayes | March 1, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
HOW ABOUT HEALTH CARE FOR 6.000,000 CHILDREN?
HOW ABOUT PROVIDING A BETTER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE WHICH WILL COVER MILLIONS MORE THAN WOULD B.O’S?
THE ONLY PEOPLE SHE’S “DIVIDING” ARE THE OBAMA-ITES FROM THE CLINTON-ITES;
THAT’S CALLED POLITICS.
I LIKE MY LEADERS BRIGHT AND FEISTY…
I LIKE MY LEADERS ABLE TO THINK ON THEIR FEET.
IT AIN’T OVER TIL IT’S OVER!!!
GIVE THEM HELL, HILLARY!!!!!
Posted by: questioner | March 1, 2008, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Rezko, Rezko, Rezko, the big white elephant in the room is coming to texas.
Teh Obama chant will be over soon.
Go Hillary!! We need a woman in charge for a real change.
Posted by: Juan | March 1, 2008, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
Nothing can stand on the way of millions calling for change not even HRC,s smear ads. HRC is no longer running for the nomination but running to save face and to ruin Barack. Super delegates should act now before Clintons destroys the Democratic party just for ego and personal gains. Wake up superdelegates act now.
Posted by: alexis compton | March 1, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
Hey questionar – answer me this
1. What happened when Mrs. Clinton ran the health care reform project that failed?
2. Why has she had so much difficulty running her campaign (she was the hands down favorite 6 months ago) ?
3. Why do so many Americans not trust her ?
4. What else, besides being Mr.Clinton’s, wife has she done (the 35 yrs of public service is such a distortation)
Her husban was a good president for America, but were not voting for her husband, were voting for he
Posted by: bob hayes | March 1, 2008, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
It’s obvious that Obama is a light weight and a empty suit. For the good of the country Senator Clinton must ignore her duty as a loyal Democrat and expose him before it is too late. This country has too much to lose.
Posted by: demfromphilly | March 1, 2008, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm
To Alexis Compton: I never mentioned HRC’s name. I merely suggested that people check out a website from a reporter who knew B.O. from Illinois and the article concerning how other Black legislators felt snubbed. Read the article. I also believe, based on this log, the O’s supporters are dividing this nation just as the Moral Majority did when they were so fanatical. Too bad, because the Republicans will win. The O supporters are great cause for alarm and really need to be rational.
Posted by: dani | March 1, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
Regarding the 3 a.m. ads.
I don’t understand why the media isn’t addressing several ‘glaring issues’ here.
First of all Senator Obama in his manipulated his responses into a ‘red phone moment’
Senator Clinton did not portray a ‘red phone’ AND is he so naive he thinks the only
phone that rings in the White House during the night is the ‘red phone’ ?
Further, the Senate in session voting on something is NOT a ‘red phone moment’ as he
tries to indicate in is misleading ad regarding Senator Clinton’s vote (identical to his several
of those who have endorsed him) and a vote at the time the country in a large majority
supported the war, along with the media.
I say misleading because I hope he isn’t so inexperienced he doesn’t know what
a ‘red phone moment’ really is.
The true ‘red phone moment’ was Septemeber 11.
Senator Hillary Clinton was on the ground quickly and has worked extremely
hard to help the victims of that ‘red phone moment’ and the responders in the
City of New York.
Posted by: Linn | March 1, 2008, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
Bob Hayes, how can a human talk sensible with you? Now, Obama says he’s gonna pull the troops out of Iraq and should al Queada open camps he’ll go back in. Hello! Does he know al Queada know is there now? Then he’ll go back in? Bob if this sounds sensible to you then there is no way to reach you at all. In the same breath he made Canada mad our number one oil supplier, our partner in the Afghanistan stationed with the heaviest fighting and this is before he becomes president. And this is even before general election has even begun.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
DEMS: if you care about getting a democrat in the white house this fall, you should want Senator Obama to win decisively on Tuesday. The only way Senator Clinton can be the nominee is tearing the party in 2 and starting from a seriously hobbled position. At this time, it’s safe to say Obama would win in Nov, Clinton would lose. Why take that chance? It’s time to rally around Obama. period.
Posted by: dem in chicago | March 1, 2008, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Hey Wil – your response to me is the reason that I will not vote for Mrs.Clinton
1. Rather that discuss the issue, you chose to attack the messenger – your following the standard set by Mrs. Clinton
2. America needs a unifier / not a divider – not someone who practices the policitcs of personel destruction – rather someone who wants to engage and discuss the issues
Posted by: bob hayes | March 1, 2008, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
Wow…people at Obama headquarters was right,some networks will just overtly push Clinton this weekend regardless how they look to the public..
Posted by: don | March 1, 2008, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm
Obama’s biggest advantage against ANYONE is the MEDIA! Let’s face it, according to the media, Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t do anything right and Barack Hussein Obama can’t do anything wrong. Poor Obama. I seem to recall Obama recently saying “its all about the delegates”. Now he is spouting that the popular vote is what the superdelegates need to vote on. Hmmm which is it? Obama needs less of “yes we can” and a lot of ‘how he can’. We need experience in the Oval Office and Obama does not have it. Vote Hillary! She is a candidate of action…he is a candidate of words. We need experience in these hard times.
Posted by: PROUDAMERICAN2008 | March 1, 2008, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
Hillary Clinton is the Senator from New York. She saw all the horror and destruction of 911 up close and personal. She lost friends in the towers, visited hospitals and saw the burned and wounded. It is so easy for Obama to talk about what he would have done but HE WASN’T A SENATOR AT THE TIME. So easy for him to talk from the comfort of 2000 miles away. If terrorist had crashed a plane into Chicago’s Sears Tower we would not be having this discussion.
Posted by: faith | March 1, 2008, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
Hillary Does The WALK ! Obama just talks the talk. If Obama can’t chair his position & hold important meetings that would make our nation more safe & secure, cause he is too busy, time for him to drop out. This is basic Political walk & chew gum at the same time folks. He surely will be a bad president & leave many people in worse shape than they are today. We have no time to waste. America needs new jobs, healthcare & better economy Yesterday. Vote Hillary She can get started on day 1. Hillary will be the Peoples President !
Posted by: P'd OFF | March 1, 2008, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
Obama touts “Move Forward”… “Turn the Page”, yet he likes to dwell on the past. He blasts Hillary and McCain for their past war votes, yet offers no solutions. He says if all hell brakes loose in Iraq, after he withdraws troops, he’d send them back in. That’s totally bogus. He’ll never reduce troop strength in Iraq to start with, because he knows it’s not possible, without hell breaking loose. He is deceiving everyone about this, and will say anything just to get elected. Look at what he told Canada about NAFTA. In a SECRET call to the Canadian Ambassador, he told them to ignore every thing he says about NAFTA….he told them it’s only campaign rhetoric. He and the Canadian Ambassador has denied this, but his campaign aide that made the call, just admitted yesterday, that he did talk to them. It shows that Obama is not beyond deceiving, and I’ll bet we all find out more Obama deceit, when the Rezco trial starts next week.
Posted by: Kevin - OR | March 1, 2008, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
People blamed Bush to start the War. The fact is: it was US senate to authorize the War. 77 senators voted YES to protect your life. It was majority of people’s will: to protect people from Danger by all means.. O and other 23 voted against the people’s will..
Oh, sorry, O was not qualified to vote yet, he just stood by…
When president swear to office: the first sentences he read are: protect your country and fellow people…
77 senators did right thing to vote YES to protect this country. It was Bush Adm failed to end it soon. Now Mr. O turned the failure of Bush Adm to against his 77 fellow colleuges: you see, I had good judgement: I am right, you are wrong!! What a dirty trick!!
If O is nominated by chance, he will be crashed by Repulicians: he declaimed No to protect people; he showed no experience to lead country out of recession, what else he has? A promised change: another Rezko Scandal in W.H……
Posted by: No-good-judgement | March 1, 2008, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
Obama is a fairy tale is really being very nice. The Truth is he’s a NIGHTMARE !!!!!!
Posted by: Common Sense | March 1, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
My vote goes to Hillary Clinton. Obama can’t even answer debate questions intelligently and without copying her answers. I have not heard any original thoughts from his campaign, only mindless chants with nothing to back them up. I believe if Clinton does not win the White House the following four years will be the straw that breaks America’s back under McCain or Obama.Go Hillary!
Posted by: whou4 | March 1, 2008, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Having some trouble with the truth there, Mark? Did mean old Hillary say something to the little Messiah like health care? Or true ugliness like media bias? Boy that sounds so mean to me. Maybe the guy on SNL wasn’t black enough for you. You do have a whole lot of problems there friend.
Posted by: Wil | March 1, 2008, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm
Ring,Ring,Ring it’s 3 am and the red phone is ringing in the White house and has been ringing now for over 12 months,it’s the American troops in Afganistan trying to find the chairman of the senate commitee in charge of the combined European forces defending against the spread of Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afganistan.Seems to me the great and oh so awsome Obama has grown deaf to the ringing of this phone.HIS RED PHONE MOMENT MISSED BECAUSE HE WAS JUST TO BUSY… FOR A MAN WHO SAYS HES THE ONE TO GET THE JOB DONE HES FAILED TO CHANGE A THING WHEN HE HAD THE CHANCE TOO
Posted by: girlinvt | March 1, 2008, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm
“If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” These were the words of bill Clinton in 2004 on behalf of Kerry against Bush. Sadly, his wife Hilary in pursuit of political power has forgotten this logic. A baby in bed, 3. am … These oldtime polis will use every means. That is why when they get to the White House they use it like their piece of property. Bill want to go back to the White House as a vindication of his presidency. So, what has Hilary’s bid to do with women’s pride? The world has had Golda Meir, Thatcher, Gandhi, Bhutto, Mrs. Peron, etc, so what is the hit?
Posted by: Dr. Jesse Kally-Williams | March 2, 2008, 8:29 am 8:29 am
I’m thinking about how SCARY the world has gotten and hoping for CHANGE in our executive leadership. Hillary will help provide that CHANGE. She’s a fighter, a loyal democrat who has been leading the fight for ordinary Americans for many years now. I support and would like her to be our next president! She’s been very responsible and exercised very good judgement as a US Senator. I’ve been extremely inspired by her since “It Takes A Village”. I want you to know that I feel as strongly about my Hillary as some of you feel about your Obama. GO HILLARY!!!!!!!
Posted by: anne | March 2, 2008, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Let me remind you Obama supporters you need us in the general election. You won’t have us we will either not vote, vote for Nader or what the hell vote for McCain. And why? It comes down to pure immaturity on your part, when over the months I have seen nothing but pure mean spiritedness on ever blog I been on this is not what this party needed
but it is truely divided.
And when we know in your hearts that Hillary is the right person for the job.
We can’t vote for Obama
Posted by: Melissa | March 3, 2008, 5:05 am 5:05 am