By MichaelJames

Jan 11, 2008 12:11am

Clinton Bashes the Process Ahead of Nev. Caucuses

ABC News’ Eloise Harper reports: With the Nevada caucuses approaching on Jan. 19, Sen. Hillary Clinton reflected upon her defeat in the Iowa caucuses at an appearance in Las Vegas’ District 11, a lower-income and predominately Hispanic part of town, suggesting caucuses cause a "disenfranchisement" of voters and perhaps lowering expectations for her campaign in Nevada.

"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised. People who can’t be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."

Clinton didn’t admit to any frustration about the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union’s recent endorsement in Nevada of her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

"I’m very committed to reaching out and meeting the people in this state," Clinton said. "The leaders that I have here in my campaign are very confident that we will do very well."

Also added to the list of endorsements Clinton is not worried about is John Kerry’s endorsement of Obama.

"I have a lot of regard for him," she said of Kerry, "and that’s his decision to make. I am very proud to have the support that I have. I was particularly pleased that the congresswoman [Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.] endorsed me here in Las Vegas."

Clinton went door-to-door canvassing for votes with state Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, age 27.  The senator, who does not speak Spanish, did run into some language barriers. At one point Clinton tried to explain to two men what a caucus was. They nodded, but then had to receive the full translation moments later. Clinton did say "gracias," but that was about all of the Spanish ABC News heard from the senator.

Small children ran up to Clinton as she passed through the streets wanting her autograph. Several women hugged the senator and said that they would offer their support.

User Comments

Hillary, you have my support. Good luck.

Posted by: GT | January 11, 2008, 12:44 am 12:44 am

why would somebody not vote for Obama??

Posted by: philip | January 11, 2008, 1:51 am 1:51 am

Of course Hillary would claim caucuses cause “dienfranchisement of voters”, unless, of course, it worked in her favor! Some fairy she is! Vote Obama!

Posted by: wiseone | January 11, 2008, 2:13 am 2:13 am

Of course Hillary would claim caucuses cause “dienfranchisement of voters”, unless, of course, it worked in her favor! Some fairy she is! Vote Obama!

Posted by: wiseone | January 11, 2008, 2:13 am 2:13 am

HRC is such a bad looser. When she lost she complains, she was about to loose the new hampshire primary and cried because she was losing.
When she was ahead in the poll, she pomped her chest and said ” They pile on me because i am winning.”
Is that a leader? Nothing is owe to her and people i urge you to vote a leader who has a vision for the country.
Obama is a superior candidate and will be superior president than HRC.
I will contribute to the campaign again and will vote for him.
Fired up and ready to go.
Obama 08.

Posted by: demos | January 11, 2008, 2:56 am 2:56 am

I am all for change, I am all for hope… but I want assurances that this CHANGE everyone is talking about will be achieved? What exactly has Obama done for people to think he can deliver this change? What if it’s “change for the worse”? Do people really want a president with little experience to show for? Doesn’t that scenario seem familiar to anyone? And look where that got us! If Obama wins the nomination I hope McCain does too because I’d rather vote for a Republican with experience and vision to restore this country than vote for another president who is clueless.

Posted by: katie | January 11, 2008, 3:34 am 3:34 am

we need people like u wiseone who constantly bashes hillary! people like you will just catapult her to the top!!!

Posted by: anthony cruz | January 11, 2008, 4:26 am 4:26 am

Without declaring who I like, my take on a caucus is: it’s highly political, I had the chance to see Iowa in a former election year. Everyone trying to get you to come in their direction or they wont vote for you for delegate to the convention, or for a position in the state party, or for your district chair race. Way to political, people bleed over for thier own interests. An open primary gives people the opportunity to register as an independent vote for who they want to run against and then re-register. I’m looking forward to Feb 5th

Posted by: kare | January 11, 2008, 5:19 am 5:19 am

Obomba is showing himself as an ultra liberal. I am an independant. The one thing that will imediatly turn me off from a party / person in an election is when you have either an ultra liberal or ultra conservative. This becomes polorizing due to the personality of the people with those views. I find Kerry to be one of those that turn me off, hence his defeat in the last election. At least Clinton has a proven record to work with both parties and get the job done, she has the brains, and the international community seems to view her positively. This means a lot to me on the person I vote for when it comes to election day… experience and a positive attitude and how you’re perceived over seas.

Posted by: Mike | January 11, 2008, 8:30 am 8:30 am

Ummm…why would anyone vote FOR Obama? Less than one term as a Senator, Zero foreign policy experience, Left-of-Kennedy voting record….

Posted by: James | January 11, 2008, 9:00 am 9:00 am

She is absolutely right. I talked to people in Iowa and so many couldn’t show up because it was such a limited time frame, so the working class doesn’t get represented.

Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2008, 9:00 am 9:00 am

Unless she pulls of an upset victory. Then the process was open and democratic.

Posted by: Eric | January 11, 2008, 9:00 am 9:00 am

Hillary needs do alot more crying to have any chance of winning NV.

Posted by: Bob, DC/USA | January 11, 2008, 9:02 am 9:02 am

PRAY THAT OBAMA STOPS THIS EVIL WITCH.

Posted by: Jedsil | January 11, 2008, 9:03 am 9:03 am

I wonder how many were illegals? If they cant speak english how in the heck can they vote? HRC was trying like most Dems to get Illegal votes.Ill take the 3 top Repubs over any Dem running. (MCcain is not one of them)

Posted by: mike stewart | January 11, 2008, 9:05 am 9:05 am

The English language really is dead….

Posted by: Gary | January 11, 2008, 9:06 am 9:06 am

The Iowa caucases are the choice of the PEOPLE OF IOWA. States rights are the forgotten civil rights issue of our time. Anything that cannot be controlled directly by the bastards in Washington, D.C, is not liked by the Beltway Elites. THANK YOU IOWA

Posted by: AtlanticIrish | January 11, 2008, 9:07 am 9:07 am

Katie,
I so agree with everything you said. I think Obama supporters may want to re-read Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Cloths.

Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2008, 9:08 am 9:08 am

Change? The democrats and the liberal media promised change last year if only we would vote in a democratic congress, well we did and the promised change’s never occurred. We are still in Iraq, the troops are fully funded, Bush is having his way on the economy, congress’s approval rating is half that of Bush….etc…. change? LOL…OMG

Posted by: JOhnny Cowart | January 11, 2008, 9:14 am 9:14 am

Obama has been an elected official far longer then Hillary Clinton.
I don’t think you hire someone based on their spouses experience.

Posted by: Pat | January 11, 2008, 9:14 am 9:14 am

Working, uneducated voters are what Senator Clinton is relying on. And if they can’t show up, she’ll ‘cry’ foul. She has gone back to ARROGANT mode. She cried because she thought she was gonna loose, NOT because she cared about the country. Obama will wax her in NV, and stomp her in SC. He is waiting until SC to give more substance before going national. The problem is too many Americans are ignorant of the issues and have a knee-jerk reaction to ‘liberals’. Obama has to dumb it down, or people will get confused. Style is the doorway to substance.

Posted by: ROB | January 11, 2008, 9:15 am 9:15 am

Obviously women are disenfranchised in a caucus system and that is a big reason why Clinton lost Iowa but won in NH. Most women with children have to take care of them in the evening and cannot caucus. If my state was a caucus state I am quite sure that daddy would caucus and mommy would stay home.

Posted by: F | January 11, 2008, 9:15 am 9:15 am

How someone who doesn’t understand English can have a clue what a candidate is talking about and then make an informed decision and vote. That puzzles me.

Posted by: charlie11 | January 11, 2008, 9:18 am 9:18 am

Too many “people” in Washington despise Hill/Bill especially republicans but also some democratics(expect more senator endorsements of Obama in the days ahead). If Hillary is elected they will spend all their time trying to derail everything she tries to accomplish. On the other hand, experience or not, they seem to genuinely like Obama. Obama is very smart and maybe, just maybe, everyone will work together to get something done to benefit us all.

Posted by: Fifi | January 11, 2008, 9:20 am 9:20 am

She’s sinking in stature fast. What a faker and a whiner. In contrast Obama behaves as a mature adult and should win through to ultimate victory.

Posted by: bmcc | January 11, 2008, 9:26 am 9:26 am

“”"Obviously women are disenfranchised in a caucus system and that is a big reason why Clinton lost Iowa but won in NH. “”"”
The pollsters all say it was OLDER women who showed up for Hillary, above what they were polling; not younger women with Children.
Hillary always had more then a 10 point lead in NH until the pollsters used the Iowa results to weight their surveys, thus throwing off the results and giving Hillary a ‘comeback’.
The fact is she was supposed to win by more then ten points for over a year and that didn’t change until Iowa and the pollsters adding more independents to their surveys. She ended up squeaking out a 3 point victory.
Also, due to the change in dates of the primary, college students weren’t even back in the state from the break – talk about being disenfranchised (Hillary didn’t complain about them though, since that group went heavily for Obama).

Posted by: Pat | January 11, 2008, 9:28 am 9:28 am

The Clinton war machine is non stop. Watch what they do in the coming months to the other democrats in the race. Remember, Senator Clinton has no record of accomplishments for the voters of New York or in the Senate. 35 years of riding Bubbas coat tails don’t make you qualified to lead Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Willy | January 11, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am

Barack Obama gives inspirational speeches, but it would be nice if he would use his oratorical talents to persuade his senate colleagues to do or not do something he thinks is critically important to our country.
He missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote and then went on to tell us how important that vote was.
When he has some actual senatorial achievements under his belt, he could well be unstoppable in his quest for the presidency.
But, first things first.
He has to have achieved something, done something — something more than local community work.
If local community organizing and volunteering were really the ticket to the White House, you would be calling me Madame President.

Posted by: poetry | January 11, 2008, 9:36 am 9:36 am

She is a nightmare and no role model for any woman.
Vote Obama.

Posted by: Lisa | January 11, 2008, 9:39 am 9:39 am

Sore loser!!! Lets hope it continues

Posted by: Dave | January 11, 2008, 9:40 am 9:40 am

Feminism has taken a step backwards with Clinton Part Deux. This is nothing more than dynastic politics. What exactly makes her more qualified that Obama? Informally advising on a failed health care plan while her husband was president? Working as a corporate lawyer while he was governor?
She has fought and won fewer elections than Obama, not to mention his valuable experience on the ground as a community organizer and civil rights litigator and constitutional law professor. Just ask the steelworkers in Chicago whether he knows how to bring real change to real people.
And then there are the dirty tactics by Clinton and her surrogates. Clearly they’re afraid of competing head-to-head, so in Iowa and New Hampshire they distribute last-minute fliers full of false claims about Obama after it’s too late for him to respond. Just one of many examples that has gone underreported in the press. (Think again if you believe the coverage has been completely pro-Obama and anti-Clinton!)
Clearly the Clintons learned a trick or two from the rightwing smear machine and have started to act the same way. Obama has more integrity in his little finger than Clinton Part Deux has in her whole body.

Posted by: jb | January 11, 2008, 9:47 am 9:47 am

“Change” to a democrat means things will be different, not better, in the future as follows:
Record high unemployment
Economic depression
Stock market collapse
20% per year inflation
Regular terrorist attacks
Fully open borders
Unlimited benefits for illegals
Collapse of the social security system
Rationed health care
$6 to $8 per gallon gasoline
Suppression of free speech
Confiscation of firearms
Most companies moving offshore
Acceleration of jobs moving out of the country
Government policies as in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran
The Europeans will like us.
That is the kind of change the democrats are really seeking.

Posted by: W Johnson | January 11, 2008, 9:50 am 9:50 am

HC: “You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said. “That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised. ”
Oh, but it’s OK for her party to disenfranchise an entire state like Michigan and strip ALL of it’s delegates because the state’s party doesn’t bow to the national’s party’s wishes on when to hold the STATE primary. Gimme a break.

Posted by: Reality | January 11, 2008, 9:54 am 9:54 am

It is only fair if she wins–otherwise people are shut out –except if they were bused in to stuff the box then it is okay. Espesially if they do not speak english so they do not understand what the candidate is saying. Be afraid -be very afraid.

Posted by: bink1 | January 11, 2008, 9:54 am 9:54 am

Hillary is the worst thing that could possibly happen to this country.
What a waste of time she is.
We should all put our focus elsewhere.

Posted by: Kevin | January 11, 2008, 9:55 am 9:55 am

I went to BO church website and what I saw was very SCARY stuff indeed. Thanks for posting the church’s address.

Posted by: JGoodson | January 11, 2008, 9:56 am 9:56 am

Interesting….how about in a Caucus Hillary cannot have her cronies manipulate the vote…it was interesting how so heavily an underdog in NH she comes out on top when there is a way to mess with the vote results?!?! Kucinich is asking for a recount because it is a 2% margin of victory…anyone at ABC gonna carry that story?

Posted by: chris farrington | January 11, 2008, 9:57 am 9:57 am

You can’t fabricate results in a caucus, unlike with voting machines or ballots.

Posted by: Scott | January 11, 2008, 10:07 am 10:07 am

If you want to vote for a QUALIFIED ex-first lady, then you need to support Nancy Reagan! At least she was acting president for a couple of years!
Seriously, without Bill, Hillary is a sham. She has NO real leadership experience, and has achieved very little in the Senate. So, as far as experience, she and Obama are pretty much equal as I see it.
HRC’s a divider. Half the nation hates her guts already. Do we want to continue down this road? Limbaugh’s ratings will skyrocket if she is elected. Obama is a uniter. If you want to see the continued partisanship in this nation, vote Hillary. If you want a new approach, that brings people and parties together, vote Obama or McCain.

Posted by: KM for Nancy Reagan | January 11, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am

It must be wonderful to be able to declare what is ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ based solely on one’s own personal interests and to have a doting, nearly mindless scribe record and promulgate such pronouncements as if they are actually ‘news.’
Sen. Clinton is a fatuous, self-serving, hypocritical, equivocator of the worst sort; a person I wouldn’t trust to walk my dog much less lead this country.
And Sen. Obama is a pretty face, with not much substance behind it. His lack of experience at the national and international level of governance are stunning…and what’s even more stunning to me is that he is a serious contender for the most difficult and important political position on the planet.
At a time when our enemies are attacking — both overtly and covertly — on a broad front we need a tough-minded, philosophically unequivocal and focused person to lead, to pick a hard-core group of advisers who are pragmatic and without compassion toward those who would harm us and, or our national interests.
Where are the Ayn Rand political objectivists when we need them? One place they most assuredly are not in is the modern, Left-leaning Democratic Party.

Posted by: jColes | January 11, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am

Its the people, the candidates themselves, that cause the ‘disenfranchisment’ of voters… not the process

Posted by: Jw | January 11, 2008, 10:21 am 10:21 am

I’m a Republican, but Hillary is exactly right on this one. The fact that military votes cannot be counted in a caucus should upset everyone.

Posted by: gb8898 | January 11, 2008, 10:31 am 10:31 am

Guys/Gals in Iowa have a minimum of 4 years to plan on being there that night.

Posted by: snakesup | January 11, 2008, 10:35 am 10:35 am

So many talk the Obama mantra of change and hope. Excuse me for throwing some logic into you emotional eutopia, but may I remind you that the Bolsheviks (Communists) offered hope and change to the “masses”, just as Obama does. Tens of millions of people died brutally because of the communists- and that was within their own borders!!
What are Obama’s policies? What has he accomplished. Not much. This is a man that talks a good talk, but doesn’t do the good walk. He’s a sweet talker, nothing more.
Oh, and by the way, to all of you American “poor”, you don’t know what poor is. The “poor” in America have it better than the middle classes of of a majority of the world. Unless you have a physical or mental illness, there is no reason for you to stay “poor” in the US. If you are “poor” and not ill, don’t put your hope into ANY politician, put your hope in yourself to achieve more and then DO IT!

Posted by: HSN | January 11, 2008, 10:40 am 10:40 am

Hello!
I’m not American. Instead, I’m from an European country. So, my opinion may not have much weight…however, if you allow me, I’d like to say one or two things.
George Bush (the father) was elected as President in 1988 (having been vice-president before that). Then it came Bill Clinton in 92. Then you got (with or without electoral fraud) George W. since 2000.
Today, we are in the year 2008. Am I just stating the obvious? Yes, I know I am…
However, have you realized that if you elect Hillary as your president till 2016, the US will look and function as if it was a monarchy with two dinasties for as long as 28 years? (the Clinton dinasty and the Bush dinasty)
Don’t you think that, regardless of Hillary’s experience (was she as good as that when she ran your healthcare system?), it’s obvious that America will be dominated by the same boys and girls with the same old interests.
I mean: one group of interests (Bush’s ones) will just be replaced by another group of interests (the Clinton’s ones)…Well, that’s “change”, but just a change in interests!
Please, don’t compare the supposed Obama’s inexperience with the W’s one.
George W. wasn’t prepared to be president just because of his inexperience as a politician. He wasn’t prepared to do it, because he never was prepared to do anything in his life. He just became the “king”, because he was the soon of another powerful former “king”. How could the US citizens not see it, I just don’t know, but don’t worry: I’m not giving any moral lesson (here in Europe we had Hitler and Mussolini…the people makes mistakes, you know?)
So, my point of view is this: if you elect Hillary it will, for sure, be better that having George W. there.
However, it will not be great, it will not produce a real change in values. It will be better, but not spectacular.
If you want someone who inspires your country and the world, if you want someone that may be compared with the heights of JFK and Lincoln then you should vote for Barack Obama. He will unite your country and he will unite the world, making it a safer and better place for all of us.
Just listen freely and without any prior preconceptions to what the man has been saying…
Do you call it inexperience? Well, I’ll call it hope and will.

Posted by: European reader | January 11, 2008, 10:41 am 10:41 am

If Ms. Clinton and her husband and Terry MacAuliffe and all the the other power elite of the Democratic party for the past 15-20 years were so concerned about disenfranchisement in the Democratic caucuses why haven’t they changed it in that time?
Answer: Because it allows Ms. Clinton to knock down a strawman and appear to be the hero of the disenfranchised and poor.
Slick. Slick. Slick.

Posted by: Peter Anderson | January 11, 2008, 10:41 am 10:41 am

hillary loves to pander, to say no woman is illegal, always gasping for votes no matter how she does it.

Posted by: hank | January 11, 2008, 10:51 am 10:51 am

Let’s be honest if experience in national government was a critical factor why haven’t many of Hillary supports voted for Biden or Richardson. How can you argue experience against John Mccain. The fact is experience is not the deciding factor. So what is? May be this fast food generation likes thing that comes real easy and does like to think about issue. For those that tout hillary experience can you give me some references of her 35 years of experience that make her worthy of president. Probably not neither can Hillary because she never does. Im Sorry but experience of failures is not attractive to me nor should it be for the American people. Her universal health care experience as first lady was a failure, and her vote on Iraq was a failure. Ask the people in New York what has she done. Its always easier to give a vaugue discription of what you have done when you really havent done anything. Hillary failures have cost this country so much. She cries about the furture if she is not elected president but where was that crying 8 years ago. If she cared so much why didn’t she run last election. So for you Hillary supports you can blog all day about her experience but can you provided concrete examples to back that statement up. I think not.
The New York times has an article of Hillary’s resume as first lady may be you should read it.

Posted by: elijah | January 11, 2008, 10:59 am 10:59 am

Peter Anderson hit the nail on the head. As a former two-term First Lady, Sen. Clinton is well aware of how the caucus process works. Face it, there were no problems with the caucuses…until Hillary lost one. Now, it’s just another piece of just another conspiracy to undermine her.

Posted by: cpo snarky | January 11, 2008, 11:15 am 11:15 am

And yet she doesn’t seem to worry about ANY/ALL of the Democrat voters in Florida being disenfranchised.

Posted by: vk | January 11, 2008, 11:20 am 11:20 am

The Caucus is an open process and Hillary Rodman cannot. So Hillary is angry because she cannot get her friends to reprogram the Diebold machine go give the outcome she wants as they did in New Hampshire.

Posted by: diogu | January 11, 2008, 11:21 am 11:21 am

And yet she doesn’t seem to worry about ANY/ALL of the Democrat voters in Florida being disenfranchised.

Posted by: vk | January 11, 2008, 11:21 am 11:21 am

Riiiiight…. Hillary doesn’t like the caucus system — that’s why she went all in in Iowa.
Funny how she loved Iowa until they didn’t give her a free ride, then she insulted them the next day. And now she’s pre-empitively insulting Nevadans because she has to work for it.
Can Hillary go a week without complaining about system she’s a part of? She knew the rules before she started playing this game, and Obama is playing by the same rules, so suck it up and win Hillary — if you can.
You said you “knew you were going to have to work for it”. So prove it.
Work for it.

Posted by: golgi | January 11, 2008, 11:27 am 11:27 am

The voters in New Hampshire do NOT vote on touchscreen voting machines.
They vote on optical scan machines which utilize PAPER ballots — which CAN be HAND-COUNTED — or THEY VOTE on PAPER BALLOTS.
When ‘optical scan’ voting machines are used, there IS a paper trail, since the voters must first fill in the circle by the name of the person for whom they are casting their vote and then feed that paper ballot into the machine that tabulates the votes. There IS a paper trail with those machines, and those paper ballots can be hand-counted if anyone wishes to challenge the vote tabulating results.
If Obama or Edwards thought the votes were not tabulated accurately, WHY haven’t they have demanded a hand recount? The fact is I think they do not believe the tabulating machines counted wrong, and that is why they are not requesting a hand recount.
If they or their supporters think the machines counted wrong, they could go to court and demand to see — and be allowed to hand count — the paper ballots that are fed into the Diebold Accuvote optical scan voting machines.

Posted by: poetry | January 11, 2008, 11:27 am 11:27 am

HRC doesn’t like caucuses because the results can’t be manipulated like they were in New Hampshire.

Posted by: G. Reynolds | January 11, 2008, 11:33 am 11:33 am

One cannot vote by absentee ballot in a caucus state, but one can in a primary state. That matters to a lot of people who might like to vote bur cannot for reasons beyond their control.
Some of the people who are disenfranchised by the Iowa caucus system are those who are (1) traveling for their job, (2) working the night of the Iowa caucuses (doctors, nurses, waiters, cooks, etc.), (3) too ill to go out, (4) too elderly to drive through the dark night to get there, or (5) who do not wish to publicize for whom they would vote and then have to argue and debate about their preference with neighbors, (6) serving in the military abroad, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: poetry | January 11, 2008, 11:35 am 11:35 am

Hey, that’s just like a Democrat…they don’t like the results under the rules, so they try to change the rules. Kind of like how Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 election by changing the rules mid-recount. Thank God for George W. Bush! Bush Rocks!

Posted by: Andrew Johnson | January 11, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am

People do know that Hillary’s husband Bill Clintion passed the welfare reform act that a lot of poor families over the edge. Clinton is pandering.
Vote OBAMA 2008

Posted by: Debbie | January 11, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am

I’m voting for Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife for President.

Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am

What is this nonsense that Obama has been an elected official longer that Clinton. Does dog catcher counts? Or perhaps town councilman? Inn which case I have been an elected official longer that both!!! Am I qualified to be POTUS? If Barack Obama was a white guy with the same experience we would be laughing the guy out of town! But he is black. And every time we try to point out the same fact that would make a while man unelectable, we are called racist. Funny thing is, the GOP slime machine will have no problem pointing out all this very valid points. For the Obama supporters is all about getting him nominated. For me is all about wining in November. That is the test that counts.

Posted by: Robert_V | January 11, 2008, 11:59 am 11:59 am

If your candidate wins, it doesn’t make you a winner. If your candidate loses, it doesn’t make you a loser. It makes you exactly what you were before before such eventss took place.
“For me is all about wining in November.” – Robert_V
Thats a shame – it should be about keeping America safe and prosperous.

Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2008, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm

Making comments to the Hispanic residents of Las Vegas—”NO WOMAN IS ILLEGAL”— is a clear indication that Hillary Clinton intends to continue to pander A THE MOMENT FOR VOTES. This is sad. Why does she spew this exaggerated rhetoric JUST to appease for votes? Is it that HRC yelled these words to an illegal in order to get a surrounded voter’s support?
Another CLEAR indication of HRC telling the people what they WANT TO HEAR.

Posted by: Jennifer | January 11, 2008, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm

One thing i think people overlook…
I don’t see ANY center-right House republicans wanting to go back to their districts and tell the people who voted for them that they supported a bill presented by a democratic party led by Hillary. NO ONE will want that on their record…it will open them up to criticism from their far right base and my usher in a competitor for that seat from their own party. No one who is a republican will want to be seen as cooperating with a hillary administration. As a result, there will be no change, only a prolonged partisan war.
Also, think about the effect on local and House races if a dem candidate has to campaign in the south/west knowing that Hillary is going to be on the ballot. we may lose seats in places that we just picked up in ’06 cause voters in purple districts have a tendency to despise Hillary.
Think about it, friends. There is a new dynamic on the horizon. Let it rise, people.
Obama ’08

Posted by: dave | January 11, 2008, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm

Hillary is yesterday’s news offering yesterday’s tomorrow.
We already know as much about her as we’re ever going to – there’s nothing new to find out.
I do not believe she has the makings of a good president.
While Obama’s résumé is light, he’s been in elective office longer than she has.
Plus, after two Bushes, do we REALLY need two Clintons? I think not….

Posted by: Jim | January 11, 2008, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm

“”"The fact that military votes cannot be counted in a caucus should upset everyone.”"”
It didn’t bother them when Bill was running at Terry MCaullife was running the DNC. This is wholly the responsibility of the Party she belongs to…
Will Hillary also oppose the use of about 900 SUPER DELEGATES who weren’t elected by any Primary or Caucus? Or is she looking to get their support to beat Obama? Hypocrite.

Posted by: Pat | January 11, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm

“People who can’t be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present.”
How Dare She? She voted yes to send that man to war! How dare she use his name to promote her wining and moaning because she is afraid! All I have to say, is that this is by far the one of the most insulting things she could say!

Posted by: Julia | January 11, 2008, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm

Gimme a break! The person who wants to be the nominee of a party that has superdelegates in case the people choose differently, who refuses to take her name off the ballot of MI and FL so that she wins by default and then will expect their delegates to be counted at the conventions, etc, calls caucuses disenfranchisement because it is an open vote? At least it isn’t disenfranchisment of two whole states. If this is close when it comes to the convention, I am going to yell disenfranchisement if those two states are given even a hint of reinstatement. But then again, if they are not HRC will call it disenfranchisement of two states when it suits her. Just wait and see.

Posted by: steve | January 11, 2008, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm

Anyone who wonders about the polarization of the electorate need only read posts such that the ones above — or this one for that matter. Sen. Obama is that he is the only Democratic candidate who has the potential, and maybe the actual ability, to unify the country on fundamental questions precisely because he is such a superb orator. As many have pointed out, her “experience” consists in riding on Bill’s coat tails. Contrary to Ms. Clinton’s assertion, words matter; they are the essence of politics. Although it might be argued, in desperation, that one governs on prose this is a dubious proposition at best. How much policy expertise did Ronald Reagan possess? In fact, political leadership demands poetry, and in that respect she is totally lacking; every note sounds is false. If she were elected, we would be be guaranteed four more years of discord and political paralysis. Even if elected, which is highly problematic, there is no way she could govern because opinions about her are etched in stone.
Her comments about disenfranchised voters in caucus states have the usual hollow ring, and they reinforce yet again all the negative attitudes about her. If one wants to end the Bush-Clinton-Bush dysfunctional dynasty, then the only rational vote is for Sen. Obama.

Posted by: David Rawn | January 11, 2008, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm

I am disenfranchised. Not by the process of electing politicians mind you; but by the utterly incompetent, corrupt, lazy, selfish, under-handed thiefs (republican and democrat) who govern the country that I love. Whatever happened to the citizen-politician-citizen of the Jeffersonian era?

Posted by: BHP | January 11, 2008, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm

Both Obama and Hillary are typical liberal losers, lol. Fred will defeat them all.

Posted by: Mr Wizbang | January 11, 2008, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm

What a whinner! How can anybody really like this woman and want to vote for her? She comes up with this big economic plan to help low income families out of no where. Is it because the caucuses and other primaries are coming up? Sounds like a coincidence to me.

Posted by: Miguelito | January 11, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm

Sour Grapes still make Billary wine. Even in a perfect growing season, or no matter how much money George Soros illegaly funnels to her campaign.

Posted by: WHERE ARE YOU CARVILLE? | January 11, 2008, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm

Why is it that liberals are always claiming disenfranchisement of voters whenever they do not win? Did she make that claim in New Hampshire? The liberals were doing the same thing in 2004 when Kerry lost. Why didn’t they do that in 2006 when they took control of Congress? It’s the same old story with the liberals. You can guarantee that if they don’t win in 2008, that’s all you will hear.

Posted by: Nick | January 11, 2008, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm

Obama recieved endorsements from Kerry and Bradley……..2 luzers. Just who I would want endorsements from. They never won a Presidential election. It also looks like the good old bys network. He wants change, but loves Kerry. LOL.

Posted by: Schubert | January 11, 2008, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm

What the heck is with the left wing and their love of the word ‘disenfranchise’?
Everyone knows its code for “fraud”. “I didn’t win the election. My voters were disenfranchised. Waaah!”
Like Gore in 2000. Liberals just can’t handle rejection.

Posted by: John | January 11, 2008, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm

Hideous Clinton’s new slogan
FOUR MORE TEARS!
Before you vote for her – remember:
- The scams of Whitewater and Casa Grande
- The White House Travel Office scandal
- Marines being used to hand out canapés at White House functions
- Obstruction of justice and perjury in the Rose Law Firm billing records scandal.
- FBI files scandal
- Her efforts to destroy the women involved with her husband
Vote Obama

Posted by: Lad | January 11, 2008, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm

I didn’t hear her complain about the Nevada caucus process when she was ahead and expected to win Nevada!

Posted by: Jackie | January 11, 2008, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm

“Well of course she doesn’t like caucuses. She would much prefer that all Americans simply, immediately prostrate themselves at her feet and obey her.” – Bob Larimer
She also doesn’t like caucuses becuase they are much harder to rig. Busloads of out of state (California) Billary voters would stick out like a sore thumb in local NV state caucuses. And most unfairly, with the absence of electronic balloting at caucuses, there’s almost no chance of repeating the “big steal” the Clinton machine perped in New Hampshire. Awww!

Posted by: WHERE ARE YOU CARVILLE? | January 11, 2008, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm

James you just described Hillary Clinton, except for the fact that she has barely one term as a U.S. Senator!
You’re right Neither Hillary Clinton
nor Barack Obama have enough experience to be President!

Posted by: reaganfan | January 11, 2008, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm

Babyboomers are running our future…their votes have not lead to change…X-geners let get the course on the path of real change and hope…Barak and Roll…Hillbilly no more!

Posted by: kww | January 11, 2008, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm

Folks, the caucus occurs on a Saturday which allows more people to participate than any standard election date which is normally on a working day.

Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2008, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm

experience?
did all of hillary’s experience give her the ability to affect any serious reform of our healthcare system?
despite her claims that she was against this silly war, did she do anything to stop it? even when her party was awarded a mandate by voters to end the war?
can anyone point to an example of senator clinton standing up to take a morally courageous if politically risky stand?
i find it pathetic that candidates pander for votes in the rest of the country be demonizing washington d.c. as corrupt and disfunctional.
until voters want ‘change.’ and then we’re supposed to believe that an intelligent, dedicated and morally brave person shouldn’t be fit to make choices on behalf of our nation simply because he hasn’t spend enough time in washington, the town they all claim to despise.
maybe the kind of ‘experience’ obama offers isn’t based on hobknobing with beltway journalists, hosting fundraising events and socializing with lobbyists.
maybe the experience obama possesses is different, but equally valuable. it’s the experience that would lead him to not only know what’s right, but to have the moral courage to stand up for it.

Posted by: hank | January 11, 2008, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm

James, James Carville where are you? All of these people know the truth about me know, what do I do?
Hillary

Posted by: WHERE ARE YOU CARVILLE? | January 11, 2008, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm

“disenfranchisement”??????
This from a leader of the party which tried to disregard absentee ballots from overseas military a couple of elections ago ????
She had better to better or so many chinese restaurant dishwashers will feel let down.

Posted by: Ziggy | January 11, 2008, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm

Of course she doesn’t like the caucuses. Her entire campaign is sales-marketing campaign: you just need to convince a voter long enough to pull the lever. In a caucus, there is actual discussion of why someone makes a good candidate. Her campaign can’t stand up to thoughtful discussion; Iowa proved that, and so will Nevada.

Posted by: alan | January 11, 2008, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm

Maybe Hillary should of told them if you really want to get ahead in this country, speak English.

Posted by: Neville | January 11, 2008, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm

I see Hillary’s pandering to the illegal vote down in Nevada…anything to get elected huh Hill?

Posted by: J.A.D.N. | January 11, 2008, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm

Maybe she should cry about it and maybe they’ll change the rules ~ Hillary’s a CRY BABY!

Posted by: TIME 2 SIT DOWN | January 11, 2008, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm

She PRO-ILLEGALS! Why vote for her? So is OBAMA.
If you’re a DEM and want to see ALL the working class jobs go to illegals, vote for them!
This includes Edwards btw. The Repubs are the ONLY people not PRO-ILLEGAL and even Huckabee is getting on that train.

Posted by: Dems love illegals | January 11, 2008, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm

“No women are illegal”, huh? It sounds as if Hillary is setting herself up with a legal defense arguement, which she will no doubt need.

Posted by: Jacque Bauer | January 11, 2008, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm

Other than gangland fear, is there any other reason why a sane person could even think of voting for the Clintonistas yet again??

Posted by: Jacque Bauer | January 11, 2008, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm

I respect Hillary but she is so pathetic to me. When she wins all is fine, when she loses she blames the system. Guys remember NH , Bill and Hillary were already lashing out at the system for being too close therefore no room between Iowa and NH for Hillary to campaign well.
Finally when she won, NH became the best process in the country. Is this the kind of leader american wants. always having an excuse for every failure.
now contrast that with obama. he painfully lost NH.he has never complained. even in his concession speech he seriously complimented hilary as far as asking his crowd to applaud for her. then went on to uplift the spirit of his supporters with wonderful speech. if u dont call this leadership ,tell me what then it is!
Lets pick a leader not a ladder!

Posted by: EE | January 11, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

I’ll bet Hillary knows how to pronounce dinero. Gracias and dinero are the only two Spanish words she needs.

Posted by: Rose Lawfirm | January 11, 2008, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm

Hillary’s record? Experience? Respect from foreign leaders? Check her legislative record in the senate. It’s abysmal, at best. She is poll-driven, not a leader. Can you see the respect America will have among Muslim countries with hillary as president? Our standing will further sink.

Posted by: martifr | January 11, 2008, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm

HRC is totally without shame. She would say and do anything to be elected eventhough she has done nothing in the Senate to even warrant being the next President. She is the most pathetic politician I have ever seen. The process is only horrible when she does not benefit. The tears in NH were from a woman who is crying tears for not gaining any political power. I have no confidence in either political party, but electing HRC will only continue the partianship in Washington for another 4 years. This country deserves better than the Hillary’s of this world.

Posted by: Dan | January 11, 2008, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm

She has participated fully in the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan. Why should this bother her now, in Nevada? (Rhetorical question… she and the others are hypocrites, that’s why.)

Posted by: hurricanewarningdc | January 11, 2008, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm

She claims that the short time limit for caucus’s is limited and can cause disenfranchisement but didn’t Iowa just have one of the largest turn outs ever. What a piece of work she is….ANYBODY but her for Prez.

Posted by: Tom Annandale virginia | January 11, 2008, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm

Mr. Obama is by far the democratic candidate w/ the most integrity, wisdom &compassion!! Hillary is all for self gain, caring not what she does to get it! She would shoot her own mother for a piece of the pie–a real weeping willow for a loser!!

Posted by: Rushay | January 11, 2008, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm

It’s really irrelevant whether Clinton is the person to bring change to Washington since there is no way she’ll win the general election. Does anyone really think she’ll be able to pick up any Red States? Will Ohio, or Florida or Pennsylvania actually vote for Hillary over a John McCain or Mitt Romney? Will any southern state vote for Hillary?
Look at how the independents voted in Iowa and New Hampshire. They went for overwhelmingly for Obama in Iowa, and split between Obama and McCain in NH. That same independent vote will decide the general election.
For better or worse Hillary Clinton is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. Republicans, not enthused about their crop of candidates, will rally around the nominee to prevent a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Those same Republicans don’t feel the same animosity towards Obama. Most Republicans could tolerate a Obama Presidency just like most Democrats could tolerate a McCain Presidency. I have nothing against Hillary, I believe she’s been treated unfairly and that she’s a much better person than she’s portrayed in the media. But she doesn’t inspire people the way Obama does. An inspired electorate will help to bring about change much more than experience.
As for the Experience question, Hillary Clinton has about as much experience as Obama. She’s a 1 term senator from New York, now serving her second term. He’s a first term senator from Illinois.
Hillary NEVER had top secret security clearance during Bill’s Presidency. Being First Lady doesn’t equate to experience as a chief executive.

Posted by: Matt | January 11, 2008, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm

Hillary played her poor me, self-pity act (her so-called authentic moment) and Media complicit in this charade, played this teary-eyed Hillary over and over again to get out the “sympathy vote”, which she did, but neglecting to air the piece right afterwards in which she lashes out at Barack Obama . This policy blunder will be huge ammunition for the Republicans if she wins the nomination. They will ask: How can she deal with the critical issues facing us today? This “teary-eyed” piece will be aired over and over again in campaign commercials; citing her as too weak and too unstable to lead the country. ? A big mistake for her! Another Republican Swift Boat, and the Republicans will win the Presidency Again!
AND YES CAUCUSSES ARE OUT IN THE OPEN AND CANNOT BE REPROGRAMMED TO GIVE A WIN IN THE HILLARY COLUMN!

Posted by: bacalove | January 11, 2008, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm

Shrillary has experience meeting with foreign leaders…..giving tea parties!! She also has lots of experience: manipulating,lying,corrupting oh and stealing (remember the white house furnishings). Yup, that’s who we to lead this country into the toliet.

Posted by: steve | January 11, 2008, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm

Just thinking about experience. Got to wondering what experience George Washington had to qualify him to be president. Or Abraham Lincoln. What claim to experience did he have? Does this mean neither man would be seen fit to be president because of their resume. Was either man failures or viewed as failures because of lack of experience for the job. Just wondering.

Posted by: Karen | January 11, 2008, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm

According to news reports, Hispanic democrats are now irritated with black democrats.
Thats all we need, a candidate that fosters more racial tensions

Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2008, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm

TRob andJedsil,I think that you people should get a grip.Why don’t you think of
how your life will change for the better
if Hillary wins.I watched this morning
how economics are predicting a recession
,the world is very complex at this
moment,China is emerging as strong economic power,they are slowly taking over the continent of Africa,South
America and you are only worried about
the personal life of Bill and Hillary.
When was the last time that we had a
surplus and under what president? If it
takes Hillary to bring things back for
the better I am for it.Obama right now
does not have the experience to be the
leader of the strongest country in the
eorld,which is the United States.There
is too much pressure in this Job folks,
this not an audition for cheer leading,
acting,or popularity contest.Make sure
that you listen deeply to the issues and
who will be ready to get the job done
from the moment that they are sworn in.
I am a man and I think that it is time
for a woman president in this country.
Countries like India under Indra Ghandi
Britain under Thatcher,Israel Goldermier
Pakistan Butho,Germany,Liberia and the
list goes on.They are women and they did
good a job as leaders of their respective countries.What are we afraid
of if we have not tried.SO AMERICA WAKE
UP.WE ARE BEHIND IN THIS DEPARTMENT.
VOTE FOR HILLARY TRUST ME SHE WILL MAKE
A GREAT PRESIDENT.

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | January 11, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

gosh Hillary, perhapa you can bus them in like New Hampshire

Posted by: Dick West | January 11, 2008, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm

The real disenfranchised voters are the “informed electorate”, not the bussed in voters that are told to vote for the third from the top.

Posted by: willo | January 11, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

If you under twenty and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you’re over forty and not a conservative, you have no mind.

Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2008, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm

Hillary doesn’t like the way we do it in Iowa. We’ll remember her whining if she has occasion to run again.

Posted by: Oberon | January 11, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm

The republicans are strongly salivating
at an Obama nomination.They have started
playing thesame dirty politics on mrs
Clinton that they played on senator John
Kerry,former Georgia senator Max Cleland
Cynthia Mackeny and a host of others.The
republicans and the media are so silent
when it comes to asking Obama his stands
on certain issues.Obama is too liberal
for the general election. Everybody know
that the voters of this country always
vote from the center.They know that the
only place that they can successfully
challenge Mrs Clinton is in the very far
left of the democratic party in the
primaries.This is working for them now
but I hope that all the hard working
middle class Americans see them for what they are up to.If Obama becomes the nominee,which I hope not,watch the
slaughter.Did anyone remember what was
done to John Macain a war hero in the
2000 prmaries,treated General Collin Power like no secretary of state when
he disagreed on going to warimmediately.Obama is not ready for this job yet.The last time I checked on the
classified section of employers looking
for new emplees,it always states “only
those with experience needed”.The world
is very complex now,economy is very bad
health care needs reform. We do not need on the job training.This not a serious decision people.I care less about the people of Iowa,they never get
it right.As they say, the only time that part of the country is once in four years.Iowa does not represente
other states in this country.I think
we should this time give a woman a
chance,she has the experience,than Obama
DEMOCRATS DO NOT LET THEM TO WIN THIS
TIME.DO NOT FALL TO THEIR GAME.HILLARY,
YOU HAVE MY VOTE>

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | January 11, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

Uh oh, Iowa… Queen Hillary was not amused by your lack of respect. If by some wild chance she actually becomes President, watch out.

Posted by: Mike | January 11, 2008, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm

My oh my. It’s getting stranger and stranger. Today, I attended a Reno, NV event with some of Obama’s foreign policy leaders. They were excellent! There were many Repubs like myself there. My husband and I will be caucusing for Obama.

Posted by: Debbie | January 11, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm

Debbie
You dont really exepct any true Rebublican to believe a Democrat has a viable clue as to effective foreign policy?

Posted by: Bob | January 11, 2008, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm

Hillary is an old school, back room, good ol’ boy type of politician and the Iowa voters saw that. Whe would not allow questions, mostly because she was avoiding her dirty record.

Posted by: Eric in Iowa | January 11, 2008, 5:40 pm 5:40 pm

According to Webster “disenfranchise” means “deprive of voting rights”. The people Hillary’s talking about may have been inconvenienced by having to actually go to a caucus or polling place, even if it meant taking time from work, or by having to actually fill out a ballot, or by having to know where their caucus or polling place was, but they weren’t disenfranchised. I’m getting pretty sick of people throwing that word around.

Posted by: Ike | January 11, 2008, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm

WHO’S WATCHING BILL?

Posted by: Hector | January 11, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm

Mike . . . Please post the list of Clintons PROVEN RECORD of accomplishments after 35 years there’s has to be at least one. How has the health care program progressed in the last 7 years in New York? Please one act of true agent of change. The “ready for work on day one ” is down right a foolish statement it shows she knows the intelligence of her supporters. She and Bill know they can say anything because none of you would know the difference if it’s true or not. Would never think about taking the time to checking something out for themselves. What a sorry bunch.

Posted by: del | January 11, 2008, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm

I am a reigstered Democrat. Three points: 1) The caucus process is the most antiquidated process of musical chairs I have seen and there needs be in this Republic a national primary. Voting should be a national holiday. 2) All candidates (both parties) in the national primary should get equal time—ALL mainstream media have thus far in my view abused the public ariwaves criminally. 3) Obama is a great person, there is much to like about him, but he will not get my vote. I am an adult citizen of the USA, I do not need someone handing out the Opiate of Hope to me, I want candidates with substantive plans for action instead of generalized homilies. I wnat to know who is going to protect us from unregulated and non transparent Hedge Funds and Private Equity Firms (the 10,000 special interest groups in the USA not spoken of) driving the ‘cult behavior of celebrities’ toward cash crops earned from diasappearing 401k’s, pension funds etc.
Hope is for children. I live in the greatest nation in the world, I don’t need hope or inspiration. I want a leader who is a statesman not a puppet of the Hedge Funds which are driving the Corporate Borg Behavior.
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Posted by: David | January 11, 2008, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm

Killery,
You have my support too. I did use it last night during a basketball game. But what the hay you can use my support to carry your stuff too.
BTW what does, “no woman is an illegal” mean?? Am I just a stupid fool or just not hip enough to read through a femist rant?
Damn she cries one day and the next day she’s winner ?? Is she by..?? polar?

Posted by: amalynn | January 11, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

Hey, I think she’s right. Caucauses are a pain to attend. In our State, it start’s at 1:00pm, Saturday, and lasts for 2 hours. Who want’s to spend part of there weekend doing this?

Posted by: JC | January 11, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm

What a strange report. ABC News completely forgot to tell you that some of the people that Hillary campaigned to were known to her not to be citizens. Some others might even be illegal aliens. Please get your news from a credible source.

Posted by: Your buddy | January 11, 2008, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm

Oberion, If you want to know who is the crying baby it the the people of Iowa.
Did you remember when other big states
wanted to move their caucuses thesame day with Iowa and they were mad.I wonder what life and busness like now that everyone has left town.Thank God,the people of New Hampshire are not followers,they listenen to issues.Lets
remind everyone,this is not a popularity
conest,cheerleading trial,reality shows,
this is your life for the next four years.It is not a game.What is the last
name of the president who inherited a
deficit but left the country with a surplus? go figure.Even on the show are
you smarter than a fifth grader,it will
take less than a second for those kids
to lock the answer.There is a lot that
the next leader of the free world will
inherit,weak dollar,unemployment,health
care,appointment of fair minded judges,
world peace,war on terror,education.This
means that he or she has to be willing to be extremly good in both domestic and foreign policie with no mistakes.Please
folks lets stop women bashing and women
of the United States,this your time.
Other civilized countries have done this
and if not now,when.VOTE FOR HILLARY.
SHE IS THE ONE .

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | January 11, 2008, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm

Would a washington insider try to steal the election? What do you think?

Posted by: Albert | January 11, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm

Yeah, if Hillary didnt have to compete in the caucuses she never would have had to suggest that Obama might have been a drug dealer or have her cronies say “How ‘great’ it is that he was once a muslim.” Why can’t they just skip right to her corination?
Unless of course she wins Nevada, then, I imagine, it’ll be a sign of how great our system works.
Maybe if she didn’t find team sports “pointless displays of masculinity” she would have learned the honor in competing on her merit instead of so much mudslinging and playing the victim.

Posted by: Rich711 | January 11, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm

This is insane!!! Hillary is the poorest excuse for a person in a leadership position – she didn’t win Iowa so now she complains about caucases? I shouldn’t be surprised, but this control freak will want a recount if anyone else win against her! Look at Kucinich – demanding a recount in the primary in NH!!! Talk about a laughing stock party – This is just insane – let’s see the voting process doesn’t go like I want, so let’s blame everyone and destroy the process. How sick. American people are truly stupid if they vote for this liberal whack job

Posted by: holly | January 11, 2008, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm

Hillary claims she has 35 years experience making “change”. She has failed to list just one “change”. When will she tell us what exactly she plans on changing if elected. She gave us one hint, that being, no woman is an illegal alien. I doubt if the American voter will like that. She is cooking her own goose. Obama and McCain will be the nominees, at least, they are both respectable.

Posted by: triplets | January 11, 2008, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm

Tell me Obama solid economic or foreign policies. Obama is not the candidate for Presidency, yes is just a poet who does not even understand the word, CHANGE. Thank God the people of NH understand that politics is about ISSUES, not rhetoric words, About solid polices on healthcare not public Show like Oprah. I have nothing against Obama, but let’s be true with ourselves. Obama has nothing to offer us except BIG cranned poetic expressions. The Oval Office is not for POETS. He has no foreign or economic policies which are WHAT YOU and ME NEED to survive in this country. For liberal like Kerry to endorse Obama shows you that WE are DONE if obama ever become president. Of course, He will loss because the GOP knows that it is ONLY HILLARY that can give them a good fight and possibly wins the presidency if she is nominated. LET”S MASSIVELY VOTE FOR HILLARY.Please, discuss about ISSUES that will affect our life for the next four years, not rhetoric CRANNED words. Our economy is on the brink, and we NEED one that will turn it AROUND and that’s HILLARY. Obama is a deceiver as I see him or do you want us all to suffer in the next four yrs.

Posted by: lilian | January 11, 2008, 8:09 pm 8:09 pm

Pls discuss ISSUES. Give example of CHANGE OBAMA has brought except disregard for our national flag and voting for iraqi funding and associating with liberals like Kerry who never won election. Tell me who you go with and I will tell you who you are. OBAMA has just shown the kind of person he is. He remains a deceiver, he must have some serious moral questions. Hillary we know. She will do it, the records are there in D.C

Posted by: Lilian | January 11, 2008, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm

Now that Obama has gotten the support of Senators Kerry and Bradley, he will NEVER get my vote!!!
Kerry and Bradley, give me a break!?!

Posted by: KFED | January 11, 2008, 8:23 pm 8:23 pm

“disenfranchisement”? Is that like where illegal aliens by the thousands are signed up to vote? And that the Democratic party buses them to the polls on election day?

Posted by: Bill | January 11, 2008, 9:14 pm 9:14 pm

Isn’t nice that Hillery is reaching out to illegal aliens and those who suck out of the trough of the public treasury to get elected.
Vote for her, and she’ll take money from those who earn it, and give it to those who don’t and those who broke the law to come her.
It’s sad think of all the Americans that have died fighting the tyranny of facsism this century, only to have the possibility of Hillery running the country.
Re-defeat Communism, vote for anyone else.

Posted by: bkhuna | January 11, 2008, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm

One thing I want to know. Did she have violin players playing while she explained what a caucus was?

Posted by: Mitt08 | January 12, 2008, 12:19 am 12:19 am

Now HRC is pandering to the Latino vote. After trying to sue subtle racist words, Bill thought no one would pick up.
Obama has always talked about us, we, you and me. The American people helping together to CHANGE AMERICA.
Hilliary is the thief. She has plagiarized everything Obama has been saying. She said I can fight for you with my 35 years. Now all of sudden she has claimed it has her own. No shame.
Through those tears she said we have to reverse this, meaning Obama is winning the women vote, and just like that, the women voted for her. Bill and Hilliary will use anything to win. She played the gender game. Pied Piper Hilliary.
She has set the women vote back. Are we women that silly if a female cries because she is losing, not for us, and we run like fools and vote for her. We are silly and Bill and Hill banked on that.
You can be sure the Repubs are going to bring up, “I never had sex with that women, Vince Foster, White water, ken Starr, talk about being polarizing.
Ttalk about crowning Obama
Who’s crowning who?
BUSH
CLINTON
BUSH
CLINTON
Clinton promised Hilliary, let me get elected first and then I will get you elected so I can clean up Monica, Jennifer Flowers etc.
Please think about your Vote. Obama has not attacked Clinton, he is not about race but uniting the World and he has the right pedigree to do that…

Posted by: Patricia | January 12, 2008, 12:40 am 12:40 am

I’ve been wondering the very things she is stating. There are some great things about caucuses, with the ability to discuss the election as it is happening, though it isn’t quite anonymous. But I work a business that puts me at work at the time a caucus would occur, so unless I got the night off, I wouldn’t be able to attend. Are restaurants closed? Are public services, such as police, firemen, toll workers, etc… shut down. Hospitals closed? I heard Obama got the endorsement of the union covering casinos, but wondered how much that helps as casinos aren’t going to close so the workers can have their voices count. Come the general election, everyone has a right to vote, and employeers have to make accomodations for someone to reach the polls. A caucus isn’t as flexible. I’m trying to figure out if the fact it is for a political nomination and not the actual general election means it doesn’t matter so much, and haven’t come to a decision on that point yet.

Posted by: John | January 12, 2008, 12:41 am 12:41 am

Hillary: I volunteered for the CLINTON?GORE Ticket in New Hampshire in 1992. However, honestly, I think that your candidacy has little merit beyond satisfying your own personal ambition and you are not running an earnest and genuine campaign designed to lift this country up. I believe that were you to get the Democratic Nomination, you are such a divisive figure that the Democratic party would hemmorage voters and the Republicans would be united in their efforts to defeat you. Nearly 70% of people in your own party do not want you as the nominee, despite your “experience.” If you ran an honest campaign with racist code words and did not manipulate women you would surely lose.

Posted by: Christopher London | January 12, 2008, 1:02 am 1:02 am

Furthermore Hillary do you not think it is offensive to voters that you seek to undermine the legitimacy of the process in states that you are likely to lose? We know exactly why people like you want a National Primary. The reason is that you despise retail politicking and resent having to interact with people one on one and prefer to have your message broadcast safely by surrogates, commercial advertising and well scripted photo ops.

Posted by: Christopher London | January 12, 2008, 1:07 am 1:07 am

How come people keep buying into the Clintons’ mantra of more experience?
Hillary’s experience prior to the Senate is only as Bill’s victim wife enabling his series of sexual indiscretions for the sake of her political ambitions.
Obama has longer elected office experience than Hillary.
The Clintons obviously favor the Rove-Bush style of whispered character assasination. At least Rove-Bush were not whiners.

Posted by: dkr | January 12, 2008, 1:24 am 1:24 am

Agree with many comments ..I wonder why people dont give John Edwards a look & listen to what he says …I think he will be an excellent President .. People should listen to the candidates than the polls .. Obama has done well so far & but i dont think he can win a general election against the Repub machine ..They will destroy him before he knows what hit him .. Edwards is electable if people give him a chance ..

Posted by: pat | January 12, 2008, 1:30 am 1:30 am

I have great faith and hope in Obama. I have read both his books and admire him
more then words can describe. I like the Clintons and worked hard for them in the nineties…but their time has come and gone.
This Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton has to stop. I would rather lose with Obama then win with Hillary.
Obama will be one of our greatest Presidents.
You want experience? Like Cheney and Rumsfeld?
Obama can heal this nation.
We don’t need to fight each other any more. It’s time to be one country united.We can do this. Yes we can.

Posted by: Susan | January 12, 2008, 1:55 am 1:55 am

what a loser. Won’t give us a plan for getting out of Iraq. Why didn’t daughter serve in Iraq? She is of age. Husband is a filanderer. loser.

Posted by: Jan Man Lesbian | January 12, 2008, 4:14 am 4:14 am

what a loser. Won’t give us a plan for getting out of Iraq. Why didn’t daughter serve in Iraq? She is of age. Husband is a filanderer. loser.

Posted by: Jan Man Lesbian | January 12, 2008, 4:15 am 4:15 am

“women disenfranchised”????
I was at the Iowa Caucuses and saw more women than men there. The fact of the matter is, if people want to be there, they will. We proved that here in Iowa for Barack.
Hillary and the news spinners are full of er, ah, manure…
OBAMA ’08 for freedom and hope!

Posted by: mark | January 12, 2008, 5:54 am 5:54 am

Susan and Lisa,
What makes you think that Hillary is going to
have a tough general election battle and your
Obama would have a cakewalk? If you guys have
a little bit ofsense on reality you would not have
yourcomments.The fact is this,your Obama
would have the toughest time convincing
people.All democrats with independent
thinking like Mrs Clinton .They like her more
than Obama and this is the truth.Why do you
guys despise her? and for what reason?
If you despise her vision,her plans for
the country or her policies,that is fine
with me.But looks like your dislike
is on a personal level.Is it because you
are just not comfortable seeing other
women rise so successfully.We have a good
chance of having two economic power
house in the white house and people like
you want to blow this.If Obama by chance
is the nominee, which I hope not,
the power in the right will not let him
even win a state in the general election
Look at what they did to Al Gore,Kerry,
Max cleland and John Macain in the 2000
primaries.It is not too late change your
mind,listen to the issues and experience. VOTE
FOR HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT.

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | January 12, 2008, 6:06 am 6:06 am

We need to annoint Al Gore as savior of the world so he can save us from certain death due to global warming. Obama and Clinton are shills for the corporations. Annoint Gore NOW

Posted by: WorldclaZZ | January 12, 2008, 6:10 am 6:10 am

The United States is a Republic not a Democracy and individuals do not have any right to vote in national elections. If she is the smartest woman in the world she should know this and not make assinine (sp) statements like that. Of course most Americans are believe there is a right to vote and will never understand and continue to be lead like sheep.

Posted by: Sue | January 12, 2008, 6:26 am 6:26 am

Anyone who seriously supports Obama is a phony. He is not going to win and that is exactly what most undercover Independents(In the closet Republicans) and those that claim Republican are hoping. Women who support him are weak and stupid, you finally have a woman who has a good chance to run the country and you cannot support her. You say if she acts aggressive she is a bitch, and if she show’s emotion she’s weak. This is ridiculous. Women, men are doing what they always do to you 1. they are making you fight against each other than you wind up losing 2. Men, you are doing what you do best act like underhanded cowards, Pretending you are supporting Obama in the Primary election and once the General election comes vote whatever Republican white male is the candidate, you are all cowards and will live to regret each of these dirty playing moves you are making.
POSTED BY LYNN

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | January 12, 2008, 7:13 am 7:13 am

Hillary doesn’t like the caucus system because it limits the opportunities to bus in voters from surrounding states. More states should use the system.

Posted by: Ned Buntline | January 12, 2008, 8:12 am 8:12 am

how do senators get a job that allows them to work full time on finding another job with full pay?

Posted by: mike | January 12, 2008, 8:34 am 8:34 am

It says something that the best the Democrats could rally behind this year are two VERY junior senators with little experience in government and virtually no experience at all in foreign affairs.
Obama wants to slide by on charisma and vague, undefined “visions” without any specifics, and Clinton claims her husband’s experience as her own while openly saying she’ll “take things away for the common good” (Marxism).
A dreamer and a coat-tailer. Great.
The only thing they seem to have in common is a socialist bent and the desire to lose the WoT and “talk” to people who would be thrilled to bomb the hell out of us, given the opportunity.
These two were the best the Democrats could come up with, other than a snake-charming multi-millionaire lawyer who claims to be for the little guy.
When style trumps substance, we’re all in the cooker.

Posted by: Roy in Illinois | January 12, 2008, 8:35 am 8:35 am

Did any of you attend the IOWA caucus? I did. I saw a mailman that day, who was being prevented from voting. He had made an issue of going to the caucus, and the day he arrived at work, they increase his workload so he could not get done in time. He was a Union Hillary supporter. That night I sat in a precinct voting room. After you have taken your original positions, you can change your vote. I saw people put pressure on their neighbors to do this. I don’t think this is right. I also saw candidates who were not viable come over an threaten groups for votes. They said if you don’t give us 6 votes we will go over to the other group (does that sound like blackmail to you). I called people that day who were too sick or old to come, but who were sound of mind and wanted to vote.
Personally, regardless of the outcome, I prefer the privacy of the voting booth, and absentee ballots. You need to face it that you can recount this vote, you cannot recount a caucus. Our ggroup counted the vote and balanced. Other precincts did not bother to do this.
I thought we had learned something from Florida.

Posted by: New Mexico | January 12, 2008, 8:40 am 8:40 am

If Obama was white, the press would destroying him for his lack of experience, his missed votes, his inability to state a position. It is unbelievable that every criticism of Obama is met with cries of racism. It is a sad day for journalism and our election process. Thankfully, a majority of the country will not be “guilted” into voting for someone because of his/her color or sex. While Hillary and Obama meet with people hanging around on the streets during the day, the rest of us who go to work to support those hanger abouts will make informed decisions.

Posted by: Karen | January 12, 2008, 9:01 am 9:01 am

Mrs. Clinton lost in the first caucus state, ergo, she suddenly hates caucssing. In NH she was probably able to bus in supporters from neighboring states and, ergo, she likes “open” primaries.
This is typical of the Clintons. They easily slip between situational ethics and no ethics at all.

Posted by: Jason Kane | January 12, 2008, 9:09 am 9:09 am

You can’t cheat at a caucus, can you, Hillary?

Posted by: T Hopkins | January 12, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am

Hillary is the phoniest politician ever, and has already set herself up to win- whether any one votes for her or not. It is a shame, too, because Obama is a breath of fresh air and would do the country good. Like it or not, the Clinton political machine will roll over anyone who tries to get in their way.

Posted by: jp | January 12, 2008, 10:01 am 10:01 am

It is amusing to watch the libs,who have been echoing Hillary’s every word for the past 5 years,now throw her under the bus in lieu of the new flavour of the day.Her once wonder platform that they have been bragging about so much now apparently sucks lol.

Posted by: arl | January 12, 2008, 10:24 am 10:24 am

It is amusing to watch the libs,who have been echoing Hillary’s every word for the past 5 years,now throw her under the bus in lieu of the new flavour of the day.Her once wonder platform that they have been bragging about so much now apparently sucks lol.

Posted by: carl | January 12, 2008, 10:24 am 10:24 am

Clinton is correct on this one. Caucusus are an event for the rabid, elitist, special interests dogs of a party. They do not speak for the people at all, but neither do the politicians once they are elected; try and get to speak to one of them once they are elected.

Posted by: John W | January 12, 2008, 10:27 am 10:27 am

Think hillery’ problem with caucases is that they are OPEN- no one can stuff the ballot or skew the vote and illegals can not vote. Though the system is antiquqted…it is efficent and not controlled by the independent makers of machines…which her buddy SOROs controls

Posted by: docb | January 12, 2008, 10:49 am 10:49 am

Hillary’s exit strategy:
Having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed “The Politics Of Personal Destruction” into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the “upstart Obama” to derail Hillary’s pre-choreographed coronation.
With regards Slick’s comments on Obama’s Iraq record; and, the draft dodger’s false accusation of flip flopping on the Iraq issue against Obama: It was actually Hillary who was the serial flip-flopper on this issue. Obama to his credit, as a matter of conscience, refused to deny American troops the funding for the bullets and equipment that they required to survive in ongoing combat. Hillary, on the other hand, with no such compelling principles, was one of only two U.S. Senators who voted to deny funding for essential equipments for our troops who they had “previously” voted to commit to lethal combat. A despicable breach of trust with the young men and women laying their lives on the line in defense of our Nation. Obama made the classical rookie error of not responding to Slick’s false accusation, which he could have easily turned to Hillary’s well deserved detriment
Slick and Hil have repeatedly demonstrated a vicious mud-slinger demeanor that is unprecedented whenever their political dynasty has been threatened in the past. Just ask anyone of their innumerable victims.
Greg

Posted by: gneubeck | January 12, 2008, 11:45 am 11:45 am

Hillary and the DNC were the ones that made up this primary/caucus schedule thinking it would benefit her. SHe has no right to complain now. Just like Bill complained in NH that there was too few days between Iowa & NH —again they are the ones instrumental in the primary calendar. Now they are whining becasue it did not work as they thought it would – in her favor!!! What hippocrites!

Posted by: catercat | January 12, 2008, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm

A caucus reflects association not franchise. Stupid is…

Posted by: Jericho | January 12, 2008, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm

HRC has never heard of states rights. In her mind all rights come from only the federal Gov’t

Posted by: mike ohio | January 12, 2008, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm

Clintonoids Seek To Disenfranchise Members Of Obama-Supporting Union

Let every vote count — but only the votes of Hillary Clinton supporters. Don’t let workers whose unions support Obama participate at all. Nevada’s state teachers union and six Las Vegas area residents filed a lawsuit late Friday that could…

Posted by: Rhymes With Right | January 12, 2008, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm

Bashes? Bashing is how one would describe this article (no qualitative comment other than the headline, overstating her sentiments) and the closed-minded posts below it. Come on, it is an unnecessarily restrictive process, and it does exclude people in real terms, for no real good reason.
If your defense of the caucus is simply that “this is what a caucus is, get over it” then the caucus is clearly the wrong process for this purpose. Thoughtful exchange of ideas…maybe?!

Posted by: JosephDC | January 12, 2008, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm

Why is it every web news outlet with commentary contain so much hate for one candidate or another. We Americans, should be proud of this time that two of the Democratic Frontrunners are minority. A formidable and competent Woman and an equally qualified African American. We should be proud instead of bashing one over the other simply because they do not share your prejudices. I am saddened on how much hate is projected on all media outlets. We must elect the most qualified person and refrain from gouging each other’s eye out simply because they do not share our point of view. We must make certain to elect a Democrat this time to start repairing what the Bush Administration managed to destroy in the last 7 years.

Posted by: Roy Sullivan | January 12, 2008, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm

The question is not whether caucuses deny some the opportunity to participate; the question is who discusses this and when. Is there a contingent of folks in Iowa who felt disinfranchized? Hillary is not a political neophyte. She could have taken up this issue years ago. But not a peep until she loses as a result of the process.
A caucus system is not a perfect process–what process is–but its what some states have chosen. I understand the deficiencies of the caucus process, but I also understand a state wanting to come out of an election with viable candidates and not a few votes each for a large panel of candidates.
The problem is that the way to accomplish this is to have everybody at the polls while non-viable candidates are eliminated. Which means everybody has to show up at once.
It was a choice of a democratic state. If they want to revisit it, fine. If not, fine.

Posted by: AgathaX | January 12, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm

I find it impossible to believe the Democrats would even consider a replay of the 90′s. They may find the Clinton’s 90′s corruption will look like child’s play compared to what will happen to this country during 2008-2012 since she now knows how to get around all three branches of government.
Don’t people realize her becoming a Senator was a calculation planned since 1992? It will be years before we’ll know what donations from China etc. are going to the Clinton Library, as well as what these countries are getting from the Clintons in return. You talk about illegal, the media won’t even look into it.

Posted by: Carrell | January 12, 2008, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm

Candidates should be compelled to spell out WHAT they are going to change…WHEN and HOW…..And given a probationary period to do it…..If nothing happens to advance their promises….They should step down and allow the runner up take over his place with the same conditions applying….
This should be repeated until the Nation is satisfied with results…
Let the one who produces continue in office until the next election.
Len

Posted by: Len Dyson | January 12, 2008, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm

Both Hillary and Obama are Socialists. At least Obama is up front about it.

Posted by: JKendrow | January 12, 2008, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm

A similar complaint as she made in 2000, when Gore won the most popular votes, but Bush had the most votes in the electoral politics, which of course where it counts. And, again, after the fact.
Here’s the problem with HRC, its someone else’s fault. Doesn’t take it on her own shoulders, its the other guy. Vast-right-wing-conspiracy, good-ole-boys, women-who-hate-women whatever.

Posted by: Pashley | January 12, 2008, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm

Caucuses “disenfranchise” people because you have to show up and vote in public and illegals (of which there are many tens of thousands in Reno and Vegas) won’t be allowed to vote for democrats.

Posted by: Vince in Sparks NV | January 12, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm

The real question is will Hillary expand on the legacy of Bill. Will she take on the task of educating young interns? Will she spread the love? Or does Obama have more of what it takes to fill those shoes? We need more info to make a decision….

Posted by: Nothing but questions | January 12, 2008, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm

Hillary is mad because SIEU didn’t endorse her. SIEU didn’t endorse her because they are holding a grudge against her husband for signing NAFTA. The Nevada Democrat party is providing some mobile caucuses that are going to be centered around the strip – where most of the participants are members of SIEU. This is why Hillary is in a snit.

Posted by: Coquimbojoe | January 12, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm

Let’s not forget, during the 90′s unemployment was at an all time low, there was no national deficit, and the economy was the best it had been in many years. And who was running the country? I believe that if Hillary is elected president, we could get back to that state. Remember when gas prices were below a $1 a gallon near the end of the 90′s? What is the national average on a gallon of gas now? Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq like many other senators because they were misinformed by our current (thank god he will be leaving next year) president about the nuclear weapons. After finding out that there were no nuclear weapons found, Hillary stopped support for the war in hopes to bring the troops home, where they belong. We don’t need our troops overseas protecting others. They need to be here on American soil protecting us, the American taxpayers that pay their salaries. I live in New York, am male and I plan on supporting Hillary on the Feb 5th primaries. If she loses the primaries, there is no way in hell I would vote for Obama. He has no proven track record. Oh yeah, one thing the Clinton administration did for the working families of this country lest we forget, was create a law that protected us from being fired from our job to care for a sick relative or ourselves. This bill is known as the Family and Medical Leave Act. Something that benefits all of us who need to take care of our sick and dying family members. Remember, family is the most important thing, and even though Bill cheated on Hillary, Hillary stuck by him because she knows family is the most important thing!

Posted by: Jim | January 12, 2008, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm

What a flipping cry baby.
She does not deserve to dog catcher, let alone president.
What an embarrassment to woman kind.

Posted by: CindyP | January 12, 2008, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm

How can experience in Washington, D.C., count for anything, when the Congress for the past 20 years or more has done absolutely nothing for the average citizen (though they have managed to support a disastrous war and offer protection to corporate and military interests)? Our educational system is a disaster, our health care system is a disaster, our foreign policy is a disaster, our infrastructure is a disaster, the war on terrorism is a disaster, the war on drugs is a disaster, the housing market is a disaster, the federal budget is a disaster, the environment is deteriorating, poverty is on the rise, the gap is widening between the rich and the poor, the middle class is feeling strapped, and corruption in government is rampant in the White House and both houses of Congress. Neither Congress nor the President, whoever he has been, has done anything to alleviate this downturn. (Whoops, I forgot, Congress investigated steroids in baseball, something they probably would not have done had Resident Bush been the Commissioner; that’ll save the country alright). I would say to voters “Run from Washington “experience” as fast as your legs will carry you.

Posted by: Fabienne | January 12, 2008, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm

HC is the most hated person in this country…besides GB…who the Left hate. And you think that she is going to win the WH???? Never happen people. The only person that I can say that I hate worse or equal to her is her “alleged” other half. Any man that would vote for her has some serious head problems.!

Posted by: sparks_fly | January 12, 2008, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm

Hillary has released her economic stimulus package.
Where’s Barack’s? I “hope” he releases it soon. I want it in writing. I want specifics from him.

Posted by: Philip Dumas | January 12, 2008, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm

Obama has more experience as an elected official than Clinton. Clinton is a sore loser as well as sore winner. She has accomplished nothing than being the wife of Bill Clinton

Posted by: Mohammed | January 12, 2008, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm

Hillary has released her economic stimulus package.
Where’s Barack’s? I “hope” he releases it soon. I want it in writing. I want specifics from him.

Posted by: Philip Dumas | January 12, 2008, 8:08 pm 8:08 pm

If “Communist” Hillary wins in 2008, I hope all of you are saving your money, like I am to be able to leave this country! You will be speaking, and cow-towing to Mexicans. Your hard-earned money and Social Security will be given to them for their well-fare
and health-care and Americans will lose more jobs, homes, and anything else you can think of because Hillary is for “Hillary” and not for the average American!

Posted by: Dennis De. | February 18, 2008, 10:11 am 10:11 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.