Obama Grilled on All Things Clinton
EmailABC News’ Sunlen Miller reports: Barack Obama held a rare press conference today in Waterloo, Iowa. As a sign of the times, 10 of the 19 questions were on either Hillary or Bill Clinton.
This is the first time Obama has responded, on camera, to Hillary’s apology over the Shaheen controversy, which came on the tarmac of National Airport on Thursday.
On the Clinton tacmac apology: “We were both getting on our planes on our way to the debate. She asked my staff if I would come around the plan to speak to her. We met on the tarmac. She apologized for Billy Shaheen’s remarks. I said I appreciated the apology. I suggested that both, that all candidates have surrogates that are eager to have their campaign win, and it was important for us as the heads of our campaigns to make sure that we are sending a clear message that this is not the kind of tone we should tolerate. And at that point she got on the plane.”
On Bill Clinton’s Charlie Rose interview: Obama was asked to respond to Bill Clinton’s interview last night on Charlie Rose in which he attacked Obama’s experience level, asking when was the last time we elected a president with only a year of service in the Senate.
Obama turned Bill Clinton’s own words around on him: “Well look, this is an argument they have been making during the duration of this campaign, I guess. Here is a quote: ‘The same old experience isn’t relevant. You can have right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience, and mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change’ — and that was Bill Clinton in 1992. And I’ve been involved in government for over a decade, so the notion that there is a particular kind of experience that he has had or his wife has had that is more relevant I would dispute.”
On the Clintons’ tactics: More broadly Obama was asked if Bill, Hillary and Shaheen’s comments were intended to make him angry or feel demeaned. Obama said, “When I was 20 points down, they all thought I was a wonderful guy. Obviously, things have changed here in Iowa and the rest of the country, and that’s the kind of politics we’ve become accustomed to.”
On Hillary Clinton’s “no surprises” comment: A reporter wanted Obama’s reaction to Hillary Clinton’s comment yesterday that there were no surprises when it came to her. Obama answered, “Here’s my suspicion, I think the argument they are making is that they have been around a long time and so whatever negative information is out there, people already know. And the assumption then is lurking in other candidates past who haven’t been around for 20 years, there might be something. … I’ve written two books, I’ve probably been reported on more than any political figure in the country over the last year. You guys have been doing a pretty good job. I hardly think that I have been underexposed. But here’s the important thing: I understand that there’s a history of politics being all about slash and burn and taking folks down, and what I recall the Clintons themselves calling the politics of personal destruction, which they decried. And my suspicion is that that’s just not where the country is at.”
On his own opposition research on Clinton: Obama was asked if he will fire anyone on his staff who gathers information on Sen. Clinton’s integrity. “Look every campaign is doing comparative research on policy, you know. … I have been very clear to my campaign, I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired.”
Asked if he sent staffers to the Clinton library in Arkansas for research, Obama responded, “That I cant answer because I don’t know that for certain. But they would not be looking for personal items. They would be looking– Again keep in mind, and this is the argument that I made earlier: Sen. Clinton’s argued that her experience as first lady is relevant. That means, and what I said publicly was, ‘If you are saying that this is your relevant experience, we should know what decisions you were involved in the White House.’ That is part of her public function and part of the argument that she is making publicly in terms of why she would be a better president.”
On Clinton’s alleging he has the favorite son status in Iowa: Someone wanted to know what Obama thought of the Clinton’s assertion that because he is from Illinois, he’s enjoying a favorite son status in neighboring Iowa. “Look, if they’re suggesting that I as this … callow youth from [Illinois] somehow had a structural advantage in Iowa relative to the Clinton operation and the former president of the United States, you know, that doesn’t strike me as a real plausible argument.”
The Des Moines Register’s looming endorsement: On the Des Moines Register’s anticipated endorsement (which may come today), Obama said, “Obviously we would love to have the endorsement of the Des Moines Register and any newspaper here in Iowa. I think it would be disingenuous to pretend that we haven’t actively sought it. But I don’t think it overrides whatever work has been done out in the field, in town hall meetings, in precinct captain organizing, and all the stuff that involves direct contact to voters. I ultimately think that makes more difference.”
And, on the Hill-O-Copter: Obama laughed at the question, “What are you going to do to top the Hill-o-copter?” — a reference to Hillary Clinton’s tour of Iowa in a helicopter starting tomorrow. But he added as he walked off, “Magic carpets.”
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat 
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
When is the last time a candidate with little experience became president???
Oh yeah, President Lincoln..from Illinois…
That went pretty well, now didn’t it Mr. President Clinton?
At least if you were on our side.
Posted by: Josh | December 15, 2007, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
President Bill Clinton is absolutely right. Experience, especially in this election, is of paramount importance. It is absurd to hear Obama say he is as experienced as the former President Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton.
If people don’t see Obama’s comments as foolish, then they are hopelessly drunk on the Obama koolaid I’m afraid.
Posted by: Jane Thompson | December 15, 2007, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
Yeah, I think Lincoln was a decent contribution from my state.
Great line, Josh.
Posted by: soldier | December 15, 2007, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
What about the personal attacks by the Obama supporter…will he step down for make an personal attack against Bill clinton Funny how there is no press coverage of this but lots of the Cinton gaffes
Posted by: Edna Dumpling | December 15, 2007, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
drug use is an issue, not because of drug use itself. its about consistency of his book. he has already lied about teens, its 20 now if we believe his latest campaign manager statement from yesterdays interview. Now, the interview he gave before 2 years, he said he stopped drugs before 20 years. that would be he did drugs when he was 22? but was it 20? 22? 24? that throws away books assertion of teens. now since one assertion goes flawed, what else will be flawed? how many more inconsistencies? did he lie in his books about facts? one fact a lie.. more facts possible lies. then there is judgement call on talking about it in high school infront of teenage kids. do the teachers unions approve it? do the anti-drug community approve it? what do the youth counseling NGO’s think about this issue?
Posted by: chris | December 15, 2007, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
Barack Obama will win by a wide margin in Iowa. He will also take New Hampshire and So. Carolina. This will give him the added momentum. Ditto for Huckabee. Obama will beat Huckabee in the general. Mitt needs to stop wasting his money, the Ron Paul revolution will be a non revolution and Rudy can go back to making millions.
Posted by: espo | December 15, 2007, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Jane, what is Hillary Clinton’s incredible experience that puts her head and shoulders about Obama? I see a failed health care reform in 1993, and lots of foreign travel with little to show for it for the rest of Bill’s term. In the senate, I don’t see her name on any major bills, just some small education and health care bills. Obama has gotten several pieces of weighty, bipartisan legislation passed in the last couple of years like the Obama-Coburn transparency bill or the Obama-Lugar antiproliferation bill.
And what has Clinton’s supposedly greater “experience” meant as far as judgment when it matters? Her Iraq and Iran votes were dead wrong, and were taken to seem centrist and go with the polls. There can be no excuse for voting for a war where 3800 American soldiers have died and 600000 Iraqis have died without even reading the NIE. She’ll sell us up the river to the Republicans for a few short-term poll points if she is elected.
Posted by: John M. | December 15, 2007, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
Chris, I’m having trouble following your writing, and so I don’t understand what your exact claims are re:Obama’s truthfulness about his drug use. Obama has been straightforward and consistent in describing his drug use. Please highlight any specific discrepancies you believe exist, with details about when Obama made those statements. Otherwise you’re just doing a sloppy job of perpetuating the Clinton smear.
Posted by: John M. | December 15, 2007, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
Edna, why doesn’t the Clinton campaign go after the “locker room” comment? I suspect it’s too oblique to attack without going over all of Bill’s sexual indiscretions (and Hillary’s lack of response to those.) And it’s not really in the same league as insinuating that someone is a drug dealer, since we *know* that many Bill’s indiscretions were real.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign should take your advice and make a stand there, as they have been losing news cycle after news cycle.
Posted by: John M. | December 15, 2007, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
bush was a governor before president, cheney and rumsfeld sure did how a lot of experience, how did that work out?
Posted by: robert | December 15, 2007, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
Jane, I bet you consider yourself more exprienced than Obama. lol!
Posted by: John | December 15, 2007, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Contrary to people’s perception, Obama went to private school all his life except his years in Indonesia. His grand parents could afford to send him to prestigeous Punahou prep school all the way up to private college. Obama is really smart to portrait himself as somehow coming from the south side of Chicago. The press is treating Obama as some rag to rich miracle simply because his skin color. Because of skin color, no hard questions can be asked at all. He wrote everything down already in his own book, didn’t he? If Obama is a white man, can you imagine anyone will pay attention to a first term senator? The republicans, however, won’t be so timid because they are being called racist anyway so what they got to loose?
Posted by: linda | December 15, 2007, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
Hillary is worried about “surprises” if Obama is the nominee??? She is the master of surprises! Her staffers surprised her with anti-Obama e-mails, Sheheen surprised her, she was surprised that Monicagate wasn’t all a vast right-wing conspiracy, she was surprised her broker could make her $100,000 in catle futures, she was surprised to find the Rose Law Firm billing records in her White House closet, and now she is surprised that it won’t be a cakewalk back into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Posted by: jim brown | December 15, 2007, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
Posted by: jkojs | December 15, 2007, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
John it’s funny you say that about Obama, being sent to a private school.
That is just the point we know so much about Obama but we know absolutely little about Clinton. Obama story is wonderful and his grand parent weren’t rich because if they were, they would have sent him to a private school in America and plus forget this black, blue, green or purple and so on. Focus on the man on the man on the man as a person person person.
Posted by: Glory | December 15, 2007, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
I’m really getting tired of the ugly, knee-capping politics and here Hillary and Bill really did have a vast right wing conspiracy against them and she damn well should have learned that the “politics of personal destruction” is not the way to go. She’s tone-deaf to what voters need and it’s unworthy of her campaign to go after Obama in the personal and mean-spirited, completely intentional way they have. She’s lost my vote because of HER integrity issues.
Posted by: allison | December 15, 2007, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
With HRC,
You could put a 30 minute clip of the dis-honesty and lying, and back stabbing and policy screw ups of Hillory and bill, ( I know after BUSH we dream of bill back in office but why rewind??
Health care, Travelgate, Lewinski, Chu, Foster, Stan Lee ( one of the nicest guys),Funds from Pharma, HMO,Flowers, Rowanda,Iran,Rose law firm,Cattle futures, Donations, It gos on and on and on. Her past is not what she is preaching for the future, Will sombody just let these people go HOME! Oh Wait where is there home Arkansa< Ney York, China, Harlem does any body know?
I just think we will al be better with only reading about Bush & Clinton in the History books!
Posted by: kdl | December 15, 2007, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
espo, you’re right, hillary failed health care reform in 1993. but what was obama doing at the time? oh thats right, he was a college professor. even in hillary’s failures, the experience she gained still counts. i don’t know if you’re familiar with the concept “learning from your mistakes”
and John M., you’re right that experience does not guarantee against making mistakes, as you pointed out with bush. but it does reduce the possibility of making mistakes, no matter what profession you’re in. if you were flying across the ocean, would you rather do it with a pilot with 10 hours of flying experience, or one with 100? i think the answer’s pretty obvious.
Posted by: Jeff | December 15, 2007, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm
oops, i meant John M for the first issue, and robert for the second issue i mentioned in my last post.
Posted by: Jeff | December 15, 2007, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
BILL CLINTON Vs. BARACK OBAMA
I am profoundly disappointed that Bill Clinton would dare giving an opinion in this debate and expects the country to take him seriously, when he is BIASED. Even a fool knows that Bill would say anything to return to the White House for a third term. All for what? So Washington would remain a deadlock, extending old fights, and America would remain STANDSTILL, and our government continues to loose repect home and abroad?
By the time he is sworn-in in 2009, Barack Obama would be a year older than Bill Clinton in 1992. Barack has comparable academic and professional background as Bill if not better (open to debate). Certainly I do not see Barack abusing privilege in the Oval office, when he becomes President. I can not say that of Bill anymore. Why should anyone entrust the White House to the Clintons, anymore?
Besides, President Clinton seems to forget that Abraham Lincoln is a classical example of a President who did not have to spend 20 years in Washington before he ran for and assumed office. And for the records, Lincoln ruled well and changed the world for the better. And like President Clinton said in the early nineties, ‘The same old experience isn’t relevant. You can have right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience…’ I do not want to weigh Hillary’s experience here necessarily. Attacking one of our democratic candidates would not be wise in my view.
But I actually thought that at some age (say over 50); people do enjoy some wisdom and command respect especially if they respect themselves. President Bill Clinton should kindly respect himself and maintain reasonable distance from the ‘politics of self destruction’. He is doing so well already with his global initiative. I want to continue to admire him as an elder statesman and my political hero, and not one cheap person that would say or do anything to return to the White House.
Posted by: Julius | December 15, 2007, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
I thought this race was Obama vs. Hillary, not Obama vs. Bill, featuring Hillary
Posted by: Perry | December 15, 2007, 6:50 pm 6:50 pm
No Thank You Mama – I’m for Obama !
Barack Obama for a better America.
It’s time to Rise and Shine again America.
Posted by: PulSamsara | December 15, 2007, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
I like Barack, I really do. Yes, he hasn’t presented a real programme for our economy now that it is being hit & tore down by the bank’s credit crunch, but still: I like him.
Sure, he hasn’t presented any real vision for America, aside of the “I believe” (which is what every candidate promises), but still: I like him.
Unfortunately, though, the digits that make up my bank account and the labour cost levels for my boss do not live up to Mr Obama’s “likeability”.
I have heard none of the Democratic contenders talk about:
1) The economy
2) Illegal immigration
3) The economic war with China.
Posted by: Kaj | December 15, 2007, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
All I gotta say is George Bush was an alcholic and a cokehead.
Posted by: D.A.R.E. | December 15, 2007, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
I am no Hillary fan, but I like to keep history from being totally distorted – if that is possible(?) – sure,
Hillary made mistakes in her search for a health care solution but the MAJOR reasons for the legislation not passing in 1994 were efforts to defeat it by the Gingrich forces and Senator Dole, whose support was needed and NOT FORTH-COMING BECAUSE OF HIS OWN PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS.
Posted by: Francoise Farron | December 15, 2007, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
i am liking obama more and more. he is very articulate, quick, sharp, and refreshing. i did vote for clinton in 92 and 96, but those two are really getting on my nerves now. they really are ruthlessly ambitious and EXPECT to win. she has stuck by a serial adulterer for 30+ years. i mean huh? and poor chelsea knows she is the product of a loveless political marriage. at this point, i don’t think one democratic candidate would do any better or worse than the other. as long as it isn’t bush or a republican, they could put elmo in and i’d be happy. at least elmo would cheer everyone up! and let’s face it. the candidates cabinet does all the work and if congress can get along with that candidate, who cares if it’s hillary or obama? with the clinton track record, obama better make sure he’s not on any charter planes that malfunction all of a sudden. yikes!
Posted by: emmarose | December 15, 2007, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm
Would the Clintons rather Obama lied like they did. Hillary had better remember her husband answer to a question regarding his drug use. Remember this?…”I tried it (marijuana) but I did not inhale..” Bill Clinton. Let us cut to the chase. The Clintons are outrightly desperate.
Posted by: Tim | December 15, 2007, 8:17 pm 8:17 pm
Bill’s comments about being a risk are bogus and smell of desperation. Ms Clinton is, by far, the riskiest candidate out there. A Hillary nomination will invigorate the demoralized Republicans like nothing else. The rednecks will come out of the wordwork to vote her down to keep and her and her pathetic husband out the WH. Obama on the other hand has many supporters who are Independents and even some Republicans. I suspect there is not one single republican that supports HRC.
Posted by: Bobareno | December 15, 2007, 8:21 pm 8:21 pm
Can’t you just see the strategy meetings? Bill says “Don’t YOU say anything bad about Obama, Hillary. I’ll go out and make things up and plant the bug in people’s ears” How transparent …. and pathetic! The worst example of dirty politics.
Posted by: dgfiit | December 15, 2007, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Jeff, I agree with you.Having a pilot with more experience does make a huge difference. But if we look at it objectively, what good is a pilot who has a hundred hours of experience, if every time the pilot lands the passanger/s have to use the emergency exit? It is one thing to have experience, but it is another thing to have passion. All the experience in the world will not amount to a hill of beans, if the pilot does not have the passion to drive him or motivate him to fullfill his obligation with a sense of pride and decency. Therefore, the choice is obvious. Obama ’08.
Posted by: Robert N | December 15, 2007, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm
I’m sorry but comparing the Washington, D.C. of Lincoln’s time to that of today RE: experiences necessary to lead the country, make change, etc is simply ludicrous. The system, atmosphere, and context is entirely different. Apples and oranges, folks. Put that one to bed.
Posted by: Matthew | December 15, 2007, 9:00 pm 9:00 pm
There have only been three senators elected directly from the senate in the entire history of the country. The last time was Kenedy in ’60. And he did not have much more experience than Obama does. But Bill Clinton’s comment really made me think first of Bobby, like Obama Bobby was a first term Senator. I believe Bobby would have been elected president in ’68 and I believe he would have been a great president. Much better than Clinton, either one of them.
Posted by: pete | December 15, 2007, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
linda:
You said if Obama was a white one-term Senator no one would take him seriously. What a racist you must be? John Edwards was a one-term Senator who went on to become the party’s nominee for VP. Do you remember, or did you just tune in yesterday? I haven’t heard ANYONE question his “experience”!
The Clintons outer veneer is molting and what’s coming to the surface is quite ugly.
Posted by: Jabari Woods | December 15, 2007, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
I predict the des moines register will endorse the sinister Hillary. The bias of their editor during the PBS debates seemed pretty clear to me. I’ll be surprised if they go with someone other than the sinister Hillary.
Posted by: squeenter squillo | December 15, 2007, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
“Please!!!Don’t compare Senator Obama to Lincoln, Kennedy, or Bill clinton. Lincoln and Kennedy were very OUTSTANDING leaders and Bill Clinton is probably, the most intelligent president we ever had. Senator obama lacks leadership qualities and is lost on foreign policy, defense, health care and the economy. Sure, the Republicans want Senator Obama, to run for Presaident because they know a guy by the name of Huckleberry, or something like that, can beat him.”
Posted by: pointman | December 15, 2007, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
I have taken many swings at honest Abe in my day. I will ALWAYS go to my reference gleaned from Dave Chappelle that America has many traditions, but lets look at our fabled past-time of baseball: oh, wait… enough has been said about that so there is no need to saddle up that horse. I base my vote on what I SEE as well as what I hear and read. If I wanted a dry candidate to be the figurehead of what used to be the greatest country in the world I would push to get 4 more years… but, once again, this is a horse that has already left the stable so there is no need to close the barn door. I will stick with my Dairy Queen until further notice.
Posted by: LIrvin | December 15, 2007, 11:07 pm 11:07 pm
check out The New York Post comments on Charlie Rose/Bill Clinton taping. If true?? Bill losing it or one too many??
Posted by: kathryn | December 16, 2007, 1:22 am 1:22 am
no offense, but the bad grammar, the distortions and misinterpretations by obama supporters on here make his campaign supporters look ignorant at best and almost neo-conservative at worst…..fact of the matter is, and you can attempt pretend its not true all you want, but Senator Clinton is easily the best equipped candidate to be the most positively effective President out there right now…..her experience, her resources, and yes, even the fact that Bill Clinton is her husband, give her the best chance to make America’s future brighter…….you can disagree, but whether you like it or not, you would still be wrong
Posted by: chris; | December 16, 2007, 1:40 am 1:40 am
no offense, but the bad grammar, the distortions and misinterpretations by obama supporters on here make his campaign supporters look ignorant at best and almost neo-conservative at worst…..fact of the matter is, and you can attempt pretend its not true all you want, but Senator Clinton is easily the best equipped candidate to be the most positively effective President out there right now…..her experience, her resources, and yes, even the fact that Bill Clinton is her husband, give her the best chance to make America’s future brighter…….you can disagree, but whether you like it or not, you would still be wrong
Posted by: chris; | December 16, 2007, 1:42 am 1:42 am
p.s. some of these attacks on the Clintons in here sound very neo-conservative, the very group that is currently destroying America
Posted by: chris | December 16, 2007, 1:48 am 1:48 am
No matter what you say, Obama will win.
Posted by: ML | December 16, 2007, 1:50 am 1:50 am
I,really liked the interview of Bill Clinton.Icould see the passion he has for America, how desprately he was trying to tell everyone not to make another mistake by voting for the wrong person again.It so happens that the right person is his wife but no one can deny the fact that she is the best of all.I for one is looking forward to see Madam Hillary Clinton in the white house
Posted by: Rehana Tahir | December 16, 2007, 2:23 am 2:23 am
Let’s look at Hillary’s “experience”:
Arkansas years: making as much money, honestly or dishonestly at Rose Law Firm to boost Bill’s campaigns. Whitewater, fending of “bimbo eruptions.”
First Lady:
Travelgate, Vince Foster’s suicide and recovering his damaging papers, collosal failure of healthcare plan,
inability to stop Republican wellfare bill, NAFTÅ, failure to blow the whistle onOsama Bin Laden 4-5 times, the rest of the time: damage control re Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, etc etc.
Senator from New York: carpetbagger who grabbed Moynaghan’s available seat, already running for President. WHY NOT CHARLES SHUMER, THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM NEW YORK? Because he was no First Lady.
I have not been able to find a SINGLE REAL ACCOMPLISHMENT Hilary has had throughout her career except getting Bill elected. She did help do that!
If that’s EXPERIENCE, bravo!
Marjorie
Posted by: Marjorie Perloff | December 16, 2007, 2:23 am 2:23 am
I am caught scratching my head wondering where some peoples brains were during Bill’s Presidency. He lied, claimed to not inhale and cheated on his spouse. In most circle, someone with these qualities is a scum.
He is now a hero….and supporting his wife. His wife has experience, covering up his lies. Ignoring what is occurring around her, and trying to claim Presidential credibility by standing in his shadow, during her run for president. The best credibility she could have had, would have been to dump the bum.
Her or Obama…….no question, she has no credibility.
Posted by: Chris Davisnov | December 16, 2007, 3:27 am 3:27 am
Let’s look at Hillary’s experience. The two significant things that she has sought to manage – first the 1993 universal healthcare bill, and now a presidential campaign. In 1993, her husband was president, the congress democratic, and 80% of the public supported universal healthcare. They had just elected Bill Clinton, who had sworn he would deliver this. What else would she need to succeed? You would think that even a complete idiot would be successful under these circumstances. Now, she is managing a presidential campaign, and you have planted questions, slanderous e-mails, campaign funding scandals, low-blow character attacks, and such. So she’s a big failure there too. Take foreign policy – she voted for the war, then she’s against it. She has no executive experience, but runs on experience. Would you get on a ship if this woman was the captain? The media is playing a joke on the public? Obama is the right one.
Posted by: julianbook | December 16, 2007, 3:35 am 3:35 am
Are these two THE VERY ABSOLUTE BEST POSSIBLE INTELLECTUALS the democrats can cough up? There are brilliant high-charactered people out there, what gives with these two?
Posted by: matt | December 16, 2007, 4:15 am 4:15 am
Julianbook:
That was brilliant comparisons.I dont support Obama yet but you seem to make me lend towards him with that contrast of him and Hilary
Posted by: TITIBERG | December 16, 2007, 5:46 am 5:46 am
President Clinton is wrong in his thoughts as it relates to “Experience”. What is crtically important in the next decade is for “America” to regain our place in the world as a dominat power who respects the rights other nations in the world. To do this we must have a leader who demonstrates integrity,wisdom,chracter and the ability to communicate to the american people. There are two viable canidates on the democratic side who appear to demonstrate that they have what it takes to restore confidence in “America”, both abroad and at home. The two are Senators Obama and Edwards.
Posted by: murl41 | December 16, 2007, 6:52 am 6:52 am
Kathryn: It seems to me that you are willing to accept the lies and deception going on in the Hillery campaign. And it’s finding. Please keep them within the confines of the lies and deception department. I was once like you, until I began to dig for the truth myself. It wasn’t hard to do either. With the use of the WWW, I was able to find the info needed to make a constructive decision. My advice to those willing to believe the unfounded truths on the net, dig a little deeper, before you come to these sites with the untruths, as they say! “The truth will set you free”.
OOOBBBAAAMMMAAA 000888!!!
Posted by: Bywill | December 16, 2007, 7:05 am 7:05 am
R tahir – “It so happens that the right person is his wife but no one can deny the fact that she is the best of all.” —– I have one question to ask you… Tell us why she is “the best of all”? Give a ligitimate reason. We are listening…
Posted by: givemeabreak | December 16, 2007, 7:53 am 7:53 am
OBAMA! We need fresh blood in the White House! NO MORE BUSH! NO MORE CLINTONS! OBAMA has intellect and the moral principles to effectively lead our nation. I cannot say the same for Hillary …
Posted by: Mike Parris | December 16, 2007, 8:17 am 8:17 am
Policitians are all the same. When they have experience, they claim experience is important. When they don’t have experience, they claim that not being a “Washington insider” is important. They all just try to wrap pretty words around whatever their background is. Spinmasters, all of them… *snort*
Posted by: ABC Commentary | December 16, 2007, 8:31 am 8:31 am
If I sigh in front of my computer does it translate into the writing? Anyway, just take a look at the things that Sen. Obama has accomplished in his short first term in senate. Much like he is promising to do in his campaign, he has stood by his guns and has his name on several bi-partisan bills which he helped get started, as well as casting key votes on several of the bills which were key to his constituents.
Hillary merely has a record of casting her vote along party lines (97.1% to be exact) whether it is really what the people which elected her wanted/needed or not. It says alot to support your party in a blind and brainless fashion, but it says more to introduce new bills which directly effect the people whom elected you. We are too caught up in Democrat and Republican lines, and Obama is offering us a fresh new perspective. I am glad that he doesn’t have 20 years of political experience. I think he won’t be able to push through the old channels of politics like Bill is warning, but I believe he has the knowledge, strength and drive to create new and innovative ones.
Posted by: concerned | December 16, 2007, 8:47 am 8:47 am
Obama doesn’t have any experience and I don’t know how he became a senator. I guess it was the dumb voters that didn’t know better. What changes is he going to make? Does he know what the word change means? And how about his drugs and booze which he was very heavy on. What a background he has. He needs an education on politics. He is not as smart as Bill Clinton and never will be. I can’t imagine him in the white house, this country will go down in a disaster. But of course he has Oprah to teach him0 since she wants to be the VP. That’s why she campaigned for him and got a heave backlash from many of the people. She is racial from the word go and wants a black president in office. Her white audience don’t know any better their just like her. I am hoping Obama does not win the nomination for president because he is not intelligent enough to become president. He needs a lot of training and he doesn’t have the experience. Even his rivals on both sides are more experienced than him. But if he does win the nomination you can bet we will have a republican in office. That would be better.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | December 16, 2007, 9:54 am 9:54 am
I am well aware that this generation is for Obama because the majority of this generation were on drugs and booze and the fits right in with them. As far as his knowledge give me a break. He could stand to go back to college and learn more. Bill Clinton is ten times smarter than he will ever be. He is well likee in the black community’s. And if Hillary doesn’t win Iowa and New Hampshire so what? Bill Clinton lost in New Hampshire, skipped Iowa and became president twice. Iowa is a little farmer’s state. Its the big states like California, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, New York and Illinois. Obama is lucky to win one of them. I believe the big states will vote Hillary in. She really doesn’t need Iowa and New Hampshire, let Obama have those states because they are not as important as people claim. He will be lucky to win any of the big states. And he is lucky to even be campaigning for president. Obama will never have the knowledge of Colin Powell. He would have made a good president. Colin Powell knows foreign policy very well and can talk to world leader’s. He’s well qualified. But Obama forget it.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | December 16, 2007, 10:29 am 10:29 am
The conventional wisdom today is candidates who can give the best speeches, media savvy answers or are the best talking heads on television is somehow equivalent to leadership in which no historical record of actions and results are required for qualifications. I think our electronic-media generation is confusing great media public relations with leadership. In the end, leadership is the sum of a candidate’s record of actions and achievements to date, that include both wins and losses to define the candidates’s ability, character, and moral compass to lead and elevation of stature. No wonder Harry Truman despised certain types of politicians.
Senator Obama and the rest of the Roman Senate club should pay better attention to the Governors of our nation, because they simply get things done. Congress gets very little done based on performance relative to pay. This is why Congress is called the broken branch of government. And the Democrats want to nominate someone from this institution? I cannot remember when Congress did something for the American people other than the best interest of their political parties. How about reforming Congress?
Posted by: threeriverscrossing | December 16, 2007, 10:44 am 10:44 am
So, it seems to me the argument many are making is the they actually *want* a lifelong politician! All the time we hear the complaints of the lifelong politician, and the inherent corruptness that goes with it. Wow, talk about spin…
Posted by: stepback | December 16, 2007, 10:50 am 10:50 am
I wish people would get off the Obama drugs and booze bandwagon. Look, this guy is smart, curious, and courageous. He’s everything Bush is not. I really think folks harp on this drugs and booze thing because Obama’s a different shade and it’s more politically correct to say he’s a druggie than admit you ain’t gonna vote for him ’cause he’s black. If that isn’t the case, why is it Bush’s alcoholism and cocaine use wasn’t front and center when he was campaigning? Bush had a DUI for kripes sake! As for the experience canard, history shows some of best presidents had so-called “little experience.” Just what kind of experience are we talking about here anyway? Experience with crooked donors, special interests, lobbyists and political cronies? We don’t need that kind of experience! We’ve had 8 years of it! Foreign experience? We’ve had that a plenty, too. Colin Powell, a man I respected until he got into bed with Bush, was our point man on foreign policy under Bush when we jumped into this horrible war. Don’t use him as an example of a “Black man with foreign experience that people would vote for president instead of Obama.” He stood by and did nothing. Forget experience–how about someone with cojones! I liked Bill when he was in office and he did a lot of good. He’s smart but not smarter than Obama. He threw away his legacy on a stupid sex affair that played right into Republican hands. How smart is that? If it comes down to Hillary and a repub, I’ll hold my nose and vote for her, but until then I’m fighting for Obama. Hillary’s part of the same old machine and this country desperately needs a new direction.
Posted by: April Campbell | December 16, 2007, 10:59 am 10:59 am
Experience? Barack has more years of service in elected office than Hillary. Maybe some will discount that fact because it included his years in the Illinois legislature, but he got out there on his own and learned the ropes. As Maureen Dowd recently pointed out, everything Hillary accomplished after getting into Yale Law School came about because of her marriage to Bill Clinton. It’s a fascinating debate above about whether Hillary’s years as first lady count as experience. Some people point out her failures and say they count against her. Others say the failures are a positive because she must have learned from them. But has she? What is the evidence that she has learned integrity, truthtelling, or an ability to embrace differences with respect and persuasive persistence? I haven’t seen any. Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” has a devastating clip of Hillary testifying before Congress about her health care program. She was unbelievably arrogant and insulting when she should have been courting those who differed from her. I think that is the real Hillary, and her anger and hostility at what she perceived to be the right-wing conspiracy directed against her have only pushed her farther and farther out on a limb of divisiveness. It’s time to break with that pattern and to choose a president who will sit down with difficult and challenging adversaries, to speak confidently and firmly about the differences in an honest effort to narrow them. This explains Hillary’s and Barack’s differences in foreign policy: he will speak with our enemies and she won’t. There’s little chance to turn enemies around by perpetuating the Bush-and-Clinton mindset.
Posted by: Andrew Bridges | December 16, 2007, 11:01 am 11:01 am
As a centrist who growup before the technology age…I am amazed at what the country has become. As a get government off our back guy I like Ron Paul. As a person who longs for an honest answer I like Obama. Clintons are not the answer folks. The Clintons gave us NAFTA which is destroying the country. The republican revolution of the 90′s could not have happened without the Clintons support. Though Ron Pauls delivering is off sometimes the message is clear America first and follow the constitution. It has worked for over 200 years.
Posted by: Moderately Paul E | December 16, 2007, 11:30 am 11:30 am
HRC’s current mantra is that she is “vetted” and “tested.” Funny how she adopted that argument after claiming ignorance over her staffer’s raising the question of Obama’s electability because of drug use as a teenager. Could it be that HRC needed that staffer to drive the story home so that HRC would be set-up to come hot on the heels of the controversy with her new mantra? As far as HRC being “vetted” and “tested,” I guess that means the Republicans will just throw up their hands and say “Well, we can’t touch her. Let’s just concede the presidency to her.” That’s not naive, it’s delusional. I’m hopeful that the common sense voters in this country will recognize that whoever the Democrat candidate will be, they will be subject to “swiftboating” and the “politics of personal destruction” by the right-wing and after Kerry’s debacle in 2004, all Democrat candidates should and better be prepared for it. All HRC’s being “vetted” means is that they will come after her even harder now that she feels so invulnerable to their attacks.
Posted by: Eyzwidopn | December 16, 2007, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
HRC’s current mantra is that she is “vetted” and “tested.” Funny how she adopted that argument after claiming ignorance over her staffer’s raising the question of Obama’s electability because of drug use as a teenager. Could it be that HRC needed that staffer to drive the story home so that HRC would be set-up to come hot on the heels of the controversy with her new mantra? As far as HRC being “vetted” and “tested,” I guess that means the Republicans will just throw up their hands and say “Well, we can’t touch her. Let’s just concede the presidency to her.” That’s not naive, it’s delusional. I’m hopeful that the common sense voters in this country will recognize that whoever the Democrat candidate will be, they will be subject to “swiftboating” and the “politics of personal destruction” by the right-wing and after Kerry’s debacle in 2004, all Democrat candidates should and better be prepared for it. All HRC’s being “vetted” means is that they will come after her even harder now that she feels so invulnerable to their attacks.
Posted by: Eyzwidopn | December 16, 2007, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
The best qualified and most experienced are Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson and McCain. On the other hand, think of the great things even the inexpeienced Bush could have accomplished with 90% of the people supporting him after 9/11 if he were a good man rather than a crass politician only interested in the welfare of the rich and in creating a neocon majority for next generation.
Posted by: Luke | December 16, 2007, 3:58 pm 3:58 pm
Hey Bill, instead of putting your wife out there could you afford us the same courtesy you afforded yourself and give us Monica Lewinski for president? I mean, if youre not happy with your own wife and she isnt doing it for you anymore, why do you wish her on us??????
Posted by: hillaryisayuckface | December 16, 2007, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Yes, I agree, even Bill wouldnt vote for Hillary if Monica were on the ticket. Is Bill the best reference for Hillary?
Posted by: inthemiddle | December 16, 2007, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
thanks “progressive people”!!!!
whites,blacks,asians & hispanics…..
whether you are republican, independent or democratic!!!!!
i . like you am supporting OBAMA, because i am tired of the “EXPERIENCED POLITICO’S in WASH.,D.C.”!!!!
“neo-con repukes & undemocratic demorats”!!!
who are “BOUGHT & PAID FOR BY LOBBYIST”!!!
I WANT MY GOVERNMENT BACK!!!!
NO DRAMA WITH OBAMA IN 2008!!!!
Posted by: blacktruth | December 16, 2007, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
I enjoy reading all the jealous comment’s about Hillary and NO I AM NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA! Its a matter of fact that he doesn’t have the experience or integrity to run the white house. Where have all of you been. And we can’t go back to the days of Lincoln that’s absurb. Obama wants that presidency so bad I bet he doesn’t sleep nights thinking about it and VP Oprah is hoping for that too. Oprah is racial and campaigned only because he is charcoal (black and white)and wants a black president in the white house. Did she ever campaign for a white candidate? NO! I wouldn’t give her the benefit of voting for him. I can’t imagine Obama in the white house, this country would become a disaster. World leader’s talking to him? Are you kidding me? They would laugh their head off asking themselves what happened to the politics in America. Hillary doesn’t need Iowa and New Hampshire to win the nomination where did you ever get that idea? Bill Clinton skipped Iowa, lost in New Hampshire and went on to win the presidency twice. Who cares about those two teeny weeny farmer states. Hillary should have campaigned in the bigger states and skipped Iowa like her husband did and she was advised to do so. Those two states are meaningless. I believe Hillary will win in the bigger states especially Wisconsin and Texas where race can be an issue.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | December 16, 2007, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
How much experience does Obama have? NONE! He needs severe training in politics and then some. NO! I wouldn’t vote for him, Yes, I am voting for Hillary. When you say she doesn’t have experience you make me laugh. All of you should have that much integrity. If you think you do why aren’t you campaigning for president? Hillary went from attorney to first lady to senator and now campaigning for president. How far did you go in your lifetime? Probably nowhere and jealous because you didn’t progress as much as she did. And about Bill Clinton’s affair. Let me go on record to say when you talk about affairs, how about all the young people having babies out of wedlock, killing their babies, living common law, drugs and booze. Give me a break. That’s what this generation is all about. And about speeches, Obama can’t give any. He definately needs Oprah to speak for him.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | December 16, 2007, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Obama may have gotten a boost from All Things Oprah, but that will fade.
Hillary will be the nominee and then we need Rudy or Mitt to take her to task. They are the two NOT afraid of the Clinton Machine.
We will have have another Republican in the White House come January of ’09.
Posted by: J Dillon | December 16, 2007, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm
Obama is an empty suit, we all see it. It is actually frightening to think of him as President.
It won’t happen. He can not win a general election.
Hillary will be the nominee and that’s good.
She is the greatest gift Republicans can receive.
Posted by: Ann B | December 16, 2007, 7:46 pm 7:46 pm
I agree, J. Dillon.
Any of the top Republicans can and will beat Hillary. Look, she can’t even beat Obama in Iowa!
She is far too polarizing and too many people simply will not vote for her based on what we know of The Clinton’s.
Posted by: Bill - Phoenix | December 16, 2007, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
Part of Obama’s experience was an 11 year career teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a top tier university. Constitutional Law is very relevant to the position for which he is running.
Posted by: barackfacts | December 16, 2007, 8:12 pm 8:12 pm
The Washington Post runs a long article about Mr. Obama: “The Ghost of a Father.” His father definitely wants him to be his alter ego.
Posted by: Lee | December 16, 2007, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
Obama without Oprah is nothing.
How sad is that?
Posted by: Bill B | December 16, 2007, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
I just want to respond to JEFF who made the comment about “who would you rather have flying you across the ocean, a pilot with 10hrs. or 100hrs. experience”. As a pilot and a retired air traffic controller, I can tell you this; first of all, a pilot who was licensed to carry passengers wouldn’t have either 10 or 100 hours experience. But if I had the choice of flying commercial with a newly promoted captain, versus one with year’s of experience, give me the new one every time. The new, fresh pilot, will pay far more attention to detail and mind his business much closer than the more experienced pilot. Before a pilot assumes the left seat, most will have more than adequate experience to tackle the job. Keep your nose to the grindstone Barack, you have the experience to take this left seat and make this nation fly right.
Posted by: gc | December 17, 2007, 3:31 am 3:31 am
What experience does Hillary have, A failed Nation wide health plan, from when Bill was in office!If we want real change and a fresh start, his name is Obama.
Posted by: Listen Up | December 17, 2007, 9:11 am 9:11 am
Why aren’t we seeing a picture of HILLary like the one seeing on DRUDGEREPORT today!The real HILLary! Let’s report on the clinton library receiving millions in donations from the Saudis. HILLary has LOST the nomination! and they say Bill is going to help. Hello! HE IS THE PROBLEM, NO ONE WANTS MORE CLINTON LIES AND CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN!GO OBAMA! (the real First Black President)
Posted by: pedro | December 17, 2007, 9:50 am 9:50 am
Read the above article thoroughly, and you will understand why I support Obama. His clear, direct and intelligent answers to spontaneously prompted questions (“grilling,” as the title puts it) reflect all that is right with this person as President. By contrast, how does Hillary deal with unprompted tough questions? Like it or not, this is one aspect of the job in question. We need someone like Barack Obama.
Posted by: texasdem | December 17, 2007, 10:14 am 10:14 am
When Barack is given a tough question, he thinks it over and gives a thoughtful answer that actually addresses the point of the question. When Hillary is given a tough question she laughs (“cackles” is up for debate) and brushes it aside so she can “stay on message.” When Barack gives a speech people want to follow him. When Hillary gives a speech people want to follow her husband. When push comes to shove Barack responds with honesty and humor. When push comes to shove Hillary responds with kindergarten bullying. A vote for Barack is a vote for real change and a bipartisan willingness to get something done. A vote for Hillary is a vote for “triangulation”, the politics of personal destruction, and more partisan gridlock. Is there any real choice here, people?
Posted by: Michael D. Hafer | December 17, 2007, 11:10 am 11:10 am
Barack is a breath of fresh air. America is so used to pollution that they think wrong is right and right is wrong. I,for one,am tired of the same old business as usual politics. The crooked, greedy, ungodly folks have almost run this country in the ground. As far as old drug use goes … who cares what he did 25 years ago? Does he do drugs now is the question. People dwell on insignificant matters when they can’t find anything else. Go Barack! God Bless America, because we sure need it.
Posted by: Gayle Canada | December 17, 2007, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
First of all, I believe the editorial board of the Des Moines Register is 5 females — so didn’t ole Bill work something out on that. As for Hillary changing, doubt that after the last few weeks, between her dirty fighting and her ducking question on the Today show this am she looks land sounds ike Bush in a pant suit. And, I would certainly like to hear what her camp though of ole Joe mento endorsing McCain — especially since she took the kneecaps of the Connecticut Dems so that Lieberman would win as an independent — that would be a good question to ask her. Nope, Hillary is politics as usually and if Iowans do give it to her I will be very surprised.
Posted by: Paulet | December 17, 2007, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
Stand Firm, Hillary. You shall be the “Comeback Girl”…. We Love You!!! :-)
Posted by: Tommy | December 17, 2007, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
I don’t know how much Oval Office Experience Hillary really has, but even Monica Lewinsky has far more presidential experience in service there than Obama does. Hillary had her chance at that experience, but she demostrated her capabilities with her foray into socializing our health care system.
Posted by: TexBork | December 17, 2007, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm