Jan 7, 2008 9:45pm

Hillary to Obama: You’re No JFK (or MLK)

Perhaps hoping to pivot away from her unusual comments criticizing Sen. Barack Obama by comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr., who delivered great speeches, and herself to President Lyndon Johnson, who actually passed civil rights laws (Read more on that HERE). Clinton said the following this evening in Salem, N.H.:

"Today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me," she said, according to ABC News’ Eloise Harper. "Basically he compared himself to two of our greatest heroes saying, ‘Well, they gave great speeches.’ President Kennedy was in the Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important ever delivered in America.

"And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed because the dream couldn’t be realize until finally it was legally permissible for people from all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens."

Thoughts?

- jpt

User Comments

My thoughts are that her initial comments were so bad that she is hoping this will be the story instead of her initial remarks. Hillary thinks of every thing from the top down instead of the bottom up. There would have never been a Civil Right Act without MLK and the civil rights movement.

Posted by: sn | January 7, 2008, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm

Nice. In order to remedy her ridiculous comment from earlier in the day, Clinton misrepresents Obama’s statements.

Posted by: UA | January 7, 2008, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm

HRC is saying that words cannot inspire when someone is without experience. however, Martin Luther King led a movement with wisdom and words when he was without major offices or titles.
Hillary will go no where trying to deflate the hopes and dreams of America. If this is a glimpse of what she is to offer voters, then it is no wonder she is getting killed. Americans are tired of partisanship and divisive politics. She is the poster child for both.
What does she think about RFK? He was an attorney then his brother’s attorney general. Does Hillary also think he had no business running for President?
I wonder what she thinks about Richard Nixon. There was probably no one more “ready to lead on day one”.

Posted by: c gibson | January 7, 2008, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm

The question is whether the media will play her game. So far, it seems that they will. They’re not touching this story.
Instead they’re talking about her crying episode from this morning because it generates sympathy for her. I’m hopeful the people of New Hampshire will see through these charades.

Posted by: Mike | January 7, 2008, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm

Jake, I still don’t see what you’re trying to prove besides that you don’t want Hillary to be our president based on your own personal reasons. Could you possibly report something worth reading as a good news reporter would do as opposed to a bad one? She is simply stating facts while you on the other hand are trying to spin facts in Obama’s favor by insinuating something. Obama hasn’t proven anything besides the fact that he does what any really bad politician does really well and that is to talk alot about things people want to hear without actually doing anything or having done anything. Big deal, so he’s the typical smooth talking bad politician who already wants to be categorized with MLK and other great leaders. Obama hasn’t done anything. All he’s proven so far is that he’s great at convincing people who have problems deciding who to vote for and people who see the current state of this country in a very different light due to their inexperience.

Posted by: DC | January 7, 2008, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm

But she is correct he is no MLK or JFK, MLK is a man that struggled for a cause in a very oppressive time, Obama is not a southern black preacher so he should not try his subliminal messages to connect his self to these to great men that worked for racial equality in their time. I am sure Obama has no idea what is it like to sit in the back of the bus, so exactly who is he trying to fool with trying that hook line calling MLK name, and he sure has never worked to fight to end any kind of racial discrimination so what is his point??

Posted by: SJ | January 7, 2008, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm

JFK had never been to the moon, but he made us all want to get there. I am no fan of Obama. He has too many smarmy ties to the Chicago politcal machine of Mayor Daley and his VERY UNSAVORY contributors, like indicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko. But Hillary is just too much. She and her equally disingenuous husband nauseate me. She can spend her twilight years keeping him on a very short leash.

Posted by: Mark James - Chicago | January 7, 2008, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm

“Hillary to Obama: You’re No JFK (or MLK)” He’s a whole lot closer than you will ever be.

Posted by: Patriot2008 | January 7, 2008, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm

If you go back and read both the statement she was introduced with (earlier in the day, the assassination comment), and her actually blowing of Martin Luthor King, I think she’s in serious damage control.
Frankly, this woman wants the presidency so bad, she’s going to say and do anything, and she’s starting to fall apart.
I was sympathetic to Hillary – I did vote for her for Senate – but not now. She’s cracking.

Posted by: Bucher | January 7, 2008, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm

Jake maybe you should ask Hillary to quit running for president and then ask her to iron your shirts instead. Obama could never be as great as MLK. The fact that Obama is so easily accepted by the public and chosen by much of the news media proves that he doesn’t have the obstacles MLK had. MLK truly suffered for his cause while Obama is basically trying to coast along on MLK’s and others’ great achievements.

Posted by: dc | January 7, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm

I was feeling sorry for Senator Clinton early in the day. I saw heard her voice crack and her tired eyes and felt for her. But after reading this, I’m really mad at her.
Obama is inspiring. Obama is uplifting and makes me want to stand up and let my voice heard.
She has lost me forever after that comment.

Posted by: Chloe | January 7, 2008, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm

Obama is about as inspiring as a snake-oil salesman.

Posted by: dc | January 7, 2008, 10:47 pm 10:47 pm

HRC is playing everyone, she is playing the victim. She is looking more and more desperate as her polls drop. She doesn’t look presidential she looks pathetic. Is she going to cry in every state, this is onlt the first 2? Your news is giving her a lot of play and Bill complains he must be paying you all greatly. It really seens slanted to her on your news. I am a female, I would love a women someday just not her, her husband isn;t helping her, maybe if she left him we might be thinking differently. She has her daughter up there trying to help her get the young vote because she is most appealing to over weight, 60 year old women. Her daughter doesn’t look like she is enjoing herself, she looks like she is being made to be their or she will lose her saving account.

Posted by: Julie Behlok | January 7, 2008, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm

If this woman has a bad hair day the media would be on it like fleas they so want her out of this thing and for what reason are they honestly going to try and convince all of us that they will support Obama as President or are they all trying to move Hillary to give another a easy win?

Posted by: SJ | January 7, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm

The media is slanted in HER favor? OMG, what planet are YOU from?

Posted by: dc | January 7, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm

SJ and DC,
Reading your comments, I’m not sure if you have read or watched the video of Hillary Clinton’s initial comments.
I have watched them and watched them again. I have tried and can find no, absolutely no, excuse for the callousness of her remarks, particularly after she was introduced by a supporter earlier in the day with these words:
“Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
-New York Times Politics Blog
Make no mistake, words have power. They have power to inspire and they have power to do harm.

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

Yep, you’re right, words do have power and when the media and others use that power to continually attack a woman like Hillary, they are doing a great deal of harm to this country and to women all over the world.

Posted by: dc | January 7, 2008, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm

The more they go negative against him, the more presidential Barack Obama looks.

Posted by: Decided Voter | January 7, 2008, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm

The change in tactics, a convenient emotional moment, and now more negative comments. . .looks like a sinking ship to me.

Posted by: Marty Carzo | January 7, 2008, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm

Haha, that’s hilarious. Obama hasn’t really seen any attacks yet. Wait and see what happens if he wins another state or two.

Posted by: dc | January 7, 2008, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm

JFK was told he was too young and too inexperienced to be president. Bobby Kennedy rode the coattails of his brother to get a nomination and win in New York….sound familiar?

Posted by: ts | January 8, 2008, 12:07 am 12:07 am

Hopefully Bloomberg will run. THAT should be interesting.

Posted by: dc | January 8, 2008, 12:14 am 12:14 am

i find it amazing that people want hilliary as president. Do you realize that if she is elected, nothing will get done? It would be another 4 years of mudslinging back and forth from the republicans and democrats. It takes everyone working together to get things done in washington and she would only alienate the republicans with more partisan politics. She is the most hated woman from half of america and the republicans in washiIngton. She is hated almost as much as bush. I have heard from so many republicans that really don’t care for any of the candidates and don’t care if obama wins. But if hillary win the nomination that will definatley galvanize that base to vote against her to make sure she and bill don’t return to the whitehouse. A lot of people don’t trust her because she owe folks favors up in dc and I think it would effect decisions she would make for america. OBama is young, fresh and hungry to make changes and unite this country as one. He hasn’t been tainted and he wants to work with ALL affliations republicans, democrats, independents, whites, blacks, asian, hispanics, etc. I can see him having a rainbow coalition on his cabinet. I wouldn’t be surprised if he got an independent running mate to show america he wants to unite and work together as one to solve americas problems.

Posted by: Lanae | January 8, 2008, 12:14 am 12:14 am

I can see Obama petering out by November since he has no substance but hopefully Bloomberg will finally run as an Independent and give the people of this country a good variety to choose from. I’ve been independent before, year’s ago. . I certainly would not have a problem voting for an Independent candidate like Bloomberg especially if he gets someone like Sam Nunn for VP.

Posted by: dc | January 8, 2008, 12:23 am 12:23 am

I do not understand why she thought she is the only best suited for the job? They want the White House because they like power and nothing will be done if she is elected.We do not another Bush or Clinton for this job.

Posted by: Bono James | January 8, 2008, 12:32 am 12:32 am

Go Hillary!
Obama is no JFK, RFK or MLK. He’s more like Jimmy Carter. All promises, big smile and no substance.
I live in California. May I please vote!?

Posted by: Philip Dumas | January 8, 2008, 12:44 am 12:44 am

Hillary is right. People comparing Obama and worst he comparing himself to JFK or Dr. King is outragious. Obama is nothing compared to them. I am a 4th generation of Black Americans and found his cockiness and words sometimes cynic and misleading. What does he knows about been a real African American? few years as a community service lawyer in Chicago dealing with unscrupulous landlords wont give him the reason to compare himself to Dr. King. He gotta stop!

Posted by: Mary | January 8, 2008, 12:45 am 12:45 am

I submit to all that history will prove that Obama will be more significant than Hillary. The movement he is leading is real!

Posted by: TMH | January 8, 2008, 12:58 am 12:58 am

Obama is so scared of facing his critics that he won’t even make an appearance on Fox News. If he actually gets nominated, he will be torn to pieces because he has no experience at dealing with criticism and believe you me, he will be attacked like you’ve never seen. People accuse Hillary of being polarizing, but wait till Obama becomes the frontrunner and anyone who doesn’t like him attacks him instead of Hillary. He’s minced meat.

Posted by: dc | January 8, 2008, 1:09 am 1:09 am

To TMH:
Did you actually just attempt to insult Barack Obama by using – HIS NAME?
Are you SERIOUS?

Posted by: Adam | January 8, 2008, 1:10 am 1:10 am

Lanae:
If have of what you said comes to pass regarding the independence, running mate, and intentions of Obama… I’ll vote for him. The fact is the Dems will go after the Reps and vis-a-versa. The only way you’d avoid that is a third party/independent and then the Dem/Reps would team up for their common cause of re-establishing the status-quo. American politics is much like buildings that house the U.S. government. Noble design that was done with long ago… we just go through the motions: rather thoughtless.
Cheers!
SCB

Posted by: Steven C. Buttgereit | January 8, 2008, 1:13 am 1:13 am

I think Hillary finally got a touché in on Obama with this one.
He would be well advised, and probably more in character, to let others compare him to Kennedy, King, and others.
Not to mention, we knew a lot more about Jack Kennedy when he ran. He had been visible since his Harvard days, raeisd in a prominent family. And though he didn’t love Congress, he did pay his dues, spending enough time in Washington to maybe know a little about what’s what.
And, he still got into trouble.

Posted by: ChanRobt | January 8, 2008, 1:15 am 1:15 am

TO THE FIRST POSTER: You criticize Obama for not appearing on FOX News? I seem to remember every single Dem candidate excluding Dennis K. wouldn’t go to debate on Fox. All of them were too cowardly to appear (including Hillary C). These are the people we want negotiating with America’s enemies???

Posted by: Robin Bullock | January 8, 2008, 1:15 am 1:15 am

I received my absentee ballot in the mail today (California) and it will be back in the mail tomorrow. My vote is loudly and proudly for Barack Obama. I predict he will not only be the Dem nominee, but he will be elected president by a landslide. I can see why the conservatives are circling the wagons in a panic that Hillary is bombing… The Republicans are crying because they could have beaten Hillary.
Finally… some light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

Posted by: lameduckprez | January 8, 2008, 1:17 am 1:17 am

With all of the coverage, both positive and Negative, that HRC is generating, maybe she should change her theme song to Ringo Starr’s “It Don’t Come Easy”?

Posted by: Bubba Ho-Tep | January 8, 2008, 1:18 am 1:18 am

Maybe Hillary will wake up and realize Americans are tired of her blasting our president EVERY time she makes a statement. She obviously is devastated she’s losing. How does she think Pres. Bush feels every single day? He’s steadfast and has kept us from terrorists. He may make mistakes-we all do but MANY Americans are tired of the Clintons disgracing the WHITE HOUSE and office of the Presidency (no matter what party gets in)–it is our hope the new President will not have to put up with Clintonians critics anymore!

Posted by: JK | January 8, 2008, 1:19 am 1:19 am

Hillary is finally finding out how low the low-life democrats will go. She thought she was a dem leader and now she is being treated like trash. No surprise. She thought the Repubs were tough, but she is finding out that the dems will do anything for a victory, no matter how low. That’s why she was crying – she is finally realizing for example why Lieberman left the party – the so called leaders left in the Dems are vile.
Jim

Posted by: Jim | January 8, 2008, 1:25 am 1:25 am

lameduckprez,– you definitely live in CA becucase if you have been living in Chicago or Illinois you would know that Obama is not a saint and that his record needs to be scrutinized. Now for Obama comparing himself to our leaders, leaders that fought hard for a cause and payed with their lives for that cause is totally nonsense. Obama was and never had a real leadership or represented any civil movement in Chicago, ever. He was an State Senator but never even marched with Jackson or Sharpton and by the way…why is he hiding them or don’t invite them to campaigning for him?

Posted by: Liz_Chicago | January 8, 2008, 1:26 am 1:26 am

When Katie Couric, or one of them, asked Hillary how she would deal with a loss, Hillary replied that she never ever considered that.
Well…she should have.
I have never seen such arrogance as in Hillary Clinton during all her debates. Her 35 years of EXPERIENCE? Give me a break! My husband is a full bird colonel and I have spent 25 years in his bed and as close to his work as Hillary. Hillary’s job as First Lady was no different from Ambassador’s wives, political wives, wealthy wives of successful men and yes, even Colonel’s wives. And advocacy roles and Good Will ambassadors and meetings with famous and high powered people, gives you experience in exactly those things. Unfortunately, we cannot “claim his experience” and expect to be competent to lead Brigades of thousands of men in war.
I would love to see a female as President but would consider it a disgrace that that woman would be Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: taja36 | January 8, 2008, 1:28 am 1:28 am

Glad to see Hillary go down, very glad. Regarding Obama, people seem to be projecting all sorts of qualities on this man that he doesn’t possess. He appears more stuck in the 60′s than Hillary–all this nonsense about coming together over him sounds like a Beatles tune. His policies, not that he has any serious ones, all appear to be rehashed 60′s failed Great State garbage.

Posted by: Charles | January 8, 2008, 1:29 am 1:29 am

So how did Hillary feel about her husband saying she was “tougher” than Nelson Mandela and Itzhak Rabin earlier in the day?
That’s pretty screwy, is it not? She’s okay with that comparison, but not with Obama’s far less brazen remark?
The article is on this page in the upper-left corner for those who missed it.

Posted by: squeenter squillo | January 8, 2008, 1:29 am 1:29 am

Jfk gets too much credit as great president. He did not serve long enough to make a judgement. And on civil rights he was a follower and did not take a principledstand until events led him there. JJJ

Posted by: john jansen | January 8, 2008, 1:31 am 1:31 am

Hillary is Nurse Ratched. Some performance, getting in all her talking points while she was pretending to be emotionally vulnerable. Puhleez! IT’s all about Hillary with her.
I do not support Obama at this time, but I so get why he apeals to a larger audience than she does.

Posted by: dcalfine | January 8, 2008, 1:31 am 1:31 am

Somebody needs to remind Hillary that Presidents don’t “pass” legislation. They sign it. The Republicans passed the Civil Rights Bill over the strenuous objections of the Democrats.

Posted by: Eric | January 8, 2008, 1:33 am 1:33 am

Jim– your comment is right on target. I am a Democrat and I have never expected to read or listening to the incredible negative attacks full of hatred and trash talking against another Democrat candidate, leaders, etc. It’s amazing! The irony is that Obama’s campaign is supposedly driving for change; but you cant change by destroying people or your own party.

Posted by: Peter | January 8, 2008, 1:34 am 1:34 am

To my good friend Mary,
At least I’d like to think of us as friends at some point…
The significance of Obama’s run cannot be understated, which I feel you do.
Colin Powell, a man I admire and respect, chose not to run against Clinton in 1996 even though all indications were that he’d win. He feared for his life and that of his family.
Obama has an awful lot of courage to take on a politically corrupt and ethically challenged Clinton Southern Political Machine with a long trail of dead bodies attributed to it. Give that some thought, please.
There’s also significance to the WHITE House having been built by slaves and black people being on the outside of it ever since. Obama has a real chance to change all of that.
The methods of the modern Civil Rights Movement may not sit well with those of us who remember the ’60s, but they are effective and will continue to be effective for the foreseeable future!
Obama has every right to express his dreams and invoke the names of other great men who had a dream. More power to him.
I’m a 48 year old white male. Go figure.
Best wishes to you.

Posted by: Publius | January 8, 2008, 1:36 am 1:36 am

Peter,
I was hoping someone who is a liberal would stand up and say that. Look at how uncivil it has all become. And one’s track record has nothing to do when there is a nomination on the line, etc. Where are all the phonies who supported Hillary before? Of course, some of the same happens on the Repub side, but they are often already portrayed as “evil”, where the dems are portrayed as nice and united, etc.
But Hillary is finding out the nitty gritty of running in a race where she can’t run again for at least 4 more years, and maybe 8 – meaning she may never have her chance at the White House, but it’s because of her own party, which I don’t think she ever thought would happen.
This is the sort of attacks that Bush has faced all 8 years in office – stupid name calling (i.e. “chimp”), stupid jokes about first and last names, etc. and then these people think they can lead a nation? You cannot get into a real debate with most dems, they just start calling you names.

Posted by: Jim | January 8, 2008, 1:39 am 1:39 am

She’s right. He’s no JFK or MLK. He’s the first Barack Obama.
Hillary isn’t battling a politician. She’s is up against an idea, a force of nature, a political movement that has been waiting 50 years to happen, waiting 50 years for the right face to emerge. She’s not battling a Senator, she’s battling what that person represents and symbolizes. And through that person America has an opportunity to become great again. And America will not be denied.
That’s why she broke down in tears today. She knows its over. The Clinton machine is built on control and they are incapable of controlling this movement – a movement that is fundamentally American at its core – that as a sum is far greater than any of its parts.

Posted by: pw | January 8, 2008, 1:42 am 1:42 am

Jake,
Is this story trying to create a guilt-complex in people?
Very similar to Israel Cohen techniques.
People have been besting their votes for merit-not color.
Obama’s win in Iowa proved that.
I’m sure you can stay away from this old cliché and report something that matters.
The fact is that the commission that had sponsored the Clinton’s before is now veering towards Obama.
You will see Hillary fade and all feel-good stories go to Obama, like how they went for Clinton back in the day.

Posted by: Mike | January 8, 2008, 1:43 am 1:43 am

how do you spell desperate
h-i-l-l-a-r-y

Posted by: Katherine L. | January 8, 2008, 1:45 am 1:45 am

America will not vote for a liberal black man named Hussein to be President.That is not bigoted statement but a calculation of the situation.

Posted by: Rob | January 8, 2008, 1:49 am 1:49 am

America will not vote for a liberal black man named Hussein to be President.That is not bigoted statement but a calculation of the situation.

Posted by: Rob | January 8, 2008, 1:49 am 1:49 am

I don’t believe that Obama was comparing himself to MLK or JFK in any other way except to say that he is not offering up false hope as Clinton falsely suggested in the debate. I think it’s fair for him to point out that behind momentous changes in this nation’s history, the American people have dared to hope and dream with their leaders. And, in case you weren’t aware, there are a lot of American people who are beginning to do just that.

Posted by: oscar | January 8, 2008, 1:53 am 1:53 am

Geoffrey– Chicago machine was the one that launched Obama’s campaign. His strategist Axelrod is Delay’s strategist. Funny, isn’t it?
Another funny thing is to see the desperation of some people calling already “this movement” and Obama the savior. Gosh..we have him here for long time in Chicago and Illinois and we still having the same problems, we haven’t changed during those years of his tine the Springfield as Senator, nothing was done, the State economy is ruined, infrastructure is bad, bickering still exist and is worst between politicians…when he was there and still now. Where was he? Amen!

Posted by: JohnChgo | January 8, 2008, 1:54 am 1:54 am

Rob, then explain how most of the lilywhite state of Iowa caught Obama-mania? Can’t be elected??? I believe the causus results speak differently.
The fact is that Obama is more likeable than an old woman who changes accents depending on the group she is addressing. Hillary is a brioken record of cliches and bad ideas. She as ridiculous as her husband. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary to be dog catcher.
The ‘unelectable’ liberal man is igniting American voters. He is destroying Hillary and it’s only going to get worse for her. By Super Tuesday her campaign will be all but dead. By November we won’t remember who Obama defeated to get to the White House.

Posted by: lameduckprez | January 8, 2008, 1:57 am 1:57 am

I am getting tired of Hillary’s relentless attacks and misrepresentations. Obama didn’t say he was the Second Coming of JFK or MLK. He said that words uplift. Words are not the end all and be all – but they shouldn’t be discounted either. Especially where we are as a country now – demoralized and feeling dispossessed. We need to be called to a higher standard, and be inspired by someone we feel will listen to us. Obama seems like the person who can do this as the Great Communicator and FDR did in the past.

Posted by: C taylor | January 8, 2008, 1:59 am 1:59 am

I still don’t understand why politicians believe that attacking each other is what people want to see, or hear. It’s not.

Posted by: trademark registration | January 8, 2008, 1:59 am 1:59 am

appears to be a desperate reach by Clinton…again. Who is Obama supposed to use as an example of oratory excellence, George W Bush? Geez.
He was using JFK/MLK to make a point that it is un-American to criticize those who use hope, referenced in speeches, to usher in change.
Just when i start to feel sorry for her i get reminded, by herself no less, why i won’t support her.

Posted by: dave | January 8, 2008, 2:00 am 2:00 am

A Chicago Democrat an agent for “change”? Come on, we know how Chicago politics works, and it’s not pretty, and it’s certainly not “change”. That’s all taxpayers will probably be left with though, if he gets elected: pocket change.
Back to the main question, Hillary was way out of line with that remark. Reminds me of that campaign staffer that got fired from her campaign for saying that the R’s were going to use his admitted drug use against him. (It happened, what…20 years ago? Come on!)

Posted by: deanj | January 8, 2008, 2:01 am 2:01 am

If you examine the presidency and the use of presidential powers over America’s history, the powers flowing from this office can be analogized to a winding river where the president must stay within certain boundaries to succeed and be careful not to overstep his/possibly her constitutional boundaries. In other words, no matter what person we elect as president, checks and balances exist in our government to hold back any major damage a president can cause. Just look at the presidency of president Bush. As a Democrat, I would say yes, America’s image around the world has been tarnished, but I would not go as far as to say George Bush Jr. “ruined” America or placed America on a path toward ending this country’s dominant position in the world today.
When we look at the big picture, what is important now is to look toward the future and focus on how we can improve our country.
As of now, in Washington DC, there are major issues that must be dealt with if we are to move forward as a society: Healthcare, Social Security, Education, Iraq, and the assault on our personal liberties. All of these issues can be solved, but our country just needs the leadership. Thus far, recent presidents have been unable to effectuate major progress (i.e., results) in most of these areas. Obama’s leadership skills will re-energize the presidency, build a majority coalition, and push forward changes that are desperately needed today. What we need now is the “people’s president,” not “one party’s” president. What we need now is Obama.

Posted by: Rudy | January 8, 2008, 2:04 am 2:04 am

Obama is appealing, not only because he is eloquent and gracious, he is also without anger and hatred, at least what we see of him on TV. In that he is unlike Democrats who are most inspired by loathing Bush and Republicans who seem to be most motivated by hostility to and hatred for undocumented immigrants. That he is not consumed with anger and hatred in a political system that has come to thrive on the uglier side of American political and pop culture is something new, something hopeful, and an appeal to our better instincts. I doubt that I will vote for him because of the issues, but God bless him for showing us another way.

Posted by: John Pfannenstiel | January 8, 2008, 2:06 am 2:06 am

lameduckprez– I didn’t say tou would like the news only that it is the news. Wait and see.

Posted by: Rob | January 8, 2008, 2:10 am 2:10 am

Words? What would Britain have done without the voice of Winston Churchill?
Point: I’m a Republican that’s never voted Democrat. I started talking about Obama last January. Not matter who wins the Republican nomination…I would vote for Obama.
Point: Read Obama’s book. Trust the heart behind the words.
Point: If Hillary became President I would go into mourning…black arm band for this country once again losing it’s
dignity.

Posted by: Jan | January 8, 2008, 2:17 am 2:17 am

Err…didn’t Bill Clinton CONSTANTLY compare himself to JFK on the campaign trail? I don’t recall Chillary having any problem with that.
And who wants to break the news to that hypocritical twit that while “President Kennedy was in the Congress for 14 years, was a war hero, and was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president,” NONE of those things apply to HER. 35 years of being a First Lady does not qualify her as ready to be president. Who the hell does she think she is?!?!?!?!
And what was THIS supposed to mean? “And then [Martin Luther King] worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed…”
Uhh, yeah, Chilly, because JFK was assassinated. Otherwise, MLK would’ve worked with *Kennedy* to get the laws changed, duh.
Geeziz H. Christmas, I can’t WAIT until Obama drives her off the campaign trail for good. I’m so sick to death of her, I could puke.

Posted by: Tony | January 8, 2008, 2:22 am 2:22 am

As a conservative I find the comments interesting.There’s obviously a significant number of people within the democratic party that resents HRC for obvious reasons. Obama strikes me as a very intelligent guy and an excellent speaker. He also has very little baggage,represents the future and just seems like an all around great guy.—-However,I think he’s going to have his feet put to the fire bigtime in the not to distant future if or when he becomes the nominee. It’s amazing that a man who was in the Illinois state senate just a little over 3 years ago and who really hasn’t accomplished anything of note is the odds on favorite to become the next President of the United States.

Posted by: EL | January 8, 2008, 2:26 am 2:26 am

“Hillary is right. People comparing Obama and worst he comparing himself to JFK or Dr. King is outragious.”<–He didn't compare himself to them. SHE did–the same hypocritic whose husband, the draft-dodger, compared HIMSELF to JFK more times than I could possibly begin to count.

Posted by: Tony | January 8, 2008, 2:41 am 2:41 am

She is self-destructing!

Posted by: Steve A. | January 8, 2008, 3:49 am 3:49 am

“Obama is not a southern black preacher so he should not try his subliminal messages to connect his self to these to great men that worked for racial equality in their time.”<–Yeah, only Bill Clinton, America's first black president, is allowed to subliminally connect himself to JFK on the campaign trail. Recall, if you will, how many times America was assaulted with that picture of young, dorky Bill shaking hands with JFK.

Posted by: Tony | January 8, 2008, 4:05 am 4:05 am

Dont rely on words.It may be false,illusive.Lies govern people’s lives.Facts are more inspiring,and that has been proven

Posted by: Vicky | January 8, 2008, 4:12 am 4:12 am

I am so thankful that George W. Bush was sitting in our highest office when
our people were destroyed in the Twin Towers. My Dem friends wanted him to go to war that day! Then when he did what he thought was best they wanted him to turn us around and run like cowards. I shudder to think what would have happened to us in WWII if these Dems were in office then. They have done nothing for the last eight years, but try to gain power. They are supposed to be up there to serve us, not themselves. No, I won’t jump on their crazed band wagon for a lying woman or a young muslim. I’m not so sure he isn’t a plant.

Posted by: Sylvia | January 8, 2008, 4:24 am 4:24 am

The last time we, collectively, bought into and voted for a “change” candidates campaign, we got Jimmy Carter. Thanks, but no thanks!!!
Scenario, for President 2008, Democrat Obama, Republican who knows, Independent Bloomberg, Libertarian Paul. Results? Ron Paul or Bloomberg. Why? Total dissatisfaction with both Democrat and Republican candidates and one of the other gets elected. None of the Democrat or Republican candidates has either the experience or lack of “baggage” to become an effective president, Paul is an isolationist and Bloomberg is a socialist/nanny stater. This is the best that we can do?
We’re screwed!

Posted by: Jim S | January 8, 2008, 5:09 am 5:09 am

Mr. Tapper you never miss a beat. You have an uncanny way of sifting through all the nonsense and focusing eerily on those little neutrons that radioactive candidates like Hillary Clinton unconsciously and therefore inadvertently release to their own detriment that makes the rest of us go nuclear.
Once again Hillary and for that matter much of the Democrat establishment reveal something really important about how they see the Civil Rights movement: (according to them) King was an eloquent speaker, but he was not part of the Washington Power structure. Johnson was the real agent of change according to this logic. That is very revelatory indeed.
Her husband likewise suggests that if he had to choose between Mandela and Rabin, he would choose Hillary, and for that matter he suggests that we should also. I wonder if he would also choose Hillary over Washington and Lincoln? For my part, I think I would prefer Mandela and Rabin. But, again this reveals something about the shallowness of politicians that are more interested in handling the levers of power and governing for us, instead of inspiring a nation so that all of us participate actively.
As the oft quoted Demosthenes vs. Cicero quote has reminded us, at this time we need someone who will inspire us to march, not someone who will inspire us to tune out while she takes care of things for us.
Today, we want and need some one like JFK, RFK or MLK – we don’t need LBJ.

Posted by: Juan Betancourt | January 8, 2008, 6:31 am 6:31 am

Excuse me, but if you’ve watched her original statement, it looked a lot like she upheld that comparison of Obama to MLK and JFK. Furthermore, she even compared herself to LBJ, somewhat diminishing their role by implying that they were the ‘talkers’ while LBJ was the ‘doer’. To now attack Obama saying that he has equated himself to either one of these historic figures seems to me beyond absurd.

Posted by: Thormigo | January 8, 2008, 7:24 am 7:24 am

BTW I think the right thing to have done after her poor choice of words during the FOX interview would probably be to either apologize for any misunderstanding that she may have generated, or just refrain from repeating that line of thought.
But to try and turn her own unfortunate ‘gaffe’ into a weapon (actually, something more like nuclear strike) against Obama, well… I have to say I would evaluate that in a somewhat different light altogether.

Posted by: thormigo | January 8, 2008, 7:33 am 7:33 am

These few days after Iowa have been a sorry disaster for Clinton. First the loss in Iowa. Then her uncontrolled anger at the debate responding to Edwards. Then the teary-eyed “sorry-for-myself” being captured on camera, and now these poorly chosen remarks.
Of course, a week in politics is a year, and there are four more weeks to super Tuesday. She’ll do better at least one of those weeks, I’m sure

Posted by: Bob | January 8, 2008, 8:42 am 8:42 am

She’s right. MLK was never a “pothead” and “junkie” who did blow.

Posted by: Bryan Shuy | January 8, 2008, 9:09 am 9:09 am

HILLARY AND BILL NEED TO REMEMBER THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE TO LEAD. PEOPLE SAY SHE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING THAT MADE HER STATE BETTER. THEN SHE MOVED THERE SO SHE COULD RUN FOR SENATOR. 7,000 CHILDREN WITH FREE HEALTH CARE IS NOT A BIG NUMBER. 2,300 SERVICE PEOPLE WITH FREE HEALTH CARE IS NOT A BIG NUMBER FOR SOLDIERS EITHER? I SAID HILLARY AND BILL BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT’S WHO WILL RUN THE WHITE HOUSE. OBAMA CAN MAKE ANY KIND OF COMPARISON HE WANTS TO MAKE. WHE IS UPSET BECAUSE SHE CAN’T CLAIM THE SAME FOR HERSELF. WE KNOW KENNEDY AND KING WERE GREAT IN THEIR ERA AND MADE CHANGES. NOW JOHNSON DID SIGN THE BILL, HE HAD NO CHOICE BECAUSE THE WHITE ESTABLISHMENT KILLED J F KENNEDY. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE TIRED OF THE SAME OLD ESTABLISHMENT RUNNING THE WHITE HOUSE. WE NEED A CHANGE, A NEW FACE. WITH A NEW NAME. NOW YOU PEOPLE CAN MAKE THE MISTAKE AND START CALLING NAMES AND INSULT THE WRONG PEOPLE AND GET BLASTED. MS CLINTON NEEDS TO STAY CIVIL AND SHE MIGHT MAKE IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE. SHE NEEDS TO SAY WHAT SHE IS GOING TO DO AND LEAVE IT AT THAT, OR SHE WON’T MAKE IT AT ALL. SHE REALLY WILL BE CRYING. THE WAY THEY LIKE TO ATTACT YOU IS GOING TO BE THE PROBLEM FOR HER. NOTHING WILL CAN SAY WILL CHANGE PEOPLE’S MIND IF SHE CAN’T BE FAIR. THAT’S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT AND THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE IT THEIR WAY NOT THE CLINTON WAY.

Posted by: NCANTRELL | January 8, 2008, 9:22 am 9:22 am

The National Security State and its figureheads love to wave JFK and MLK around as heros, name buildings and holidays after them, get misty-eyed remembering them. Murderers love to attend their victims’ funerals, yes? Google COINTELPRO, William Pepper, E. Howard Hunt confession. Demand justice.

Posted by: Maurice Bishop | January 8, 2008, 9:26 am 9:26 am

Oh come off it some of you this man confessed to doing coke in collage, you all made such a fuss over Bush party days but Obama is getting a free ride with this one why?? I cant recall any story of MLK doing drugs can any of you, so where are the standards for the presidency gone, doing drugs when you were young is acceptable now, ok well I will tell that you my young children its ok to throw caution to the wind when you are young but just clean up your act when you get older its acceptable. The more I listen to Obama he comes off as a phony riding the wave of being black and getting a free pass because everyone is handling him with kid gloves so they would not be called the ‘bad guys’. If he was white would anyone of you or the media refuse to question his pass I don’t think so, every news paper would of been already digging up the dirt on him but no one wants to go there. America must be the only nation in the world that wants to fight drugs but is willing to accept that their Presidents were once willing to dabble with it, this is really becoming to be the joke of the year.

Posted by: SJ | January 8, 2008, 9:31 am 9:31 am

I have read a lot of comments the past few days. I agree with some and of course disagree with others. The First Amendment is certainly alive and well!
Regular readers know that I am a conservative Republican. And I have said several times that I will be voting for whomever the Republican nominee is based solely on ideology. My personal preference is not in the race. But I am still hoping for a brokered Republican National Convention so that the delegates will eventually draft Dr. Condoleezza Rice as our nominee. My dream team is Dr. Rice and Sen. Lieberman.
But having said that, I am very impressed with Sen. Obama’s charisma and charm. I can certainly see why those who agree with him ideologically are drawn to him. Ideologically there is no difference between Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and John Edwards. There is very little difference in their messages. But the reason Sen. Obama is gaining momentum (Sen. Clinton’s 20-25 point lead nationally, is now within the margin of error) is the manner in which he is expressing the message. He exudes grace and dignity.

Posted by: James Danley | January 8, 2008, 9:43 am 9:43 am

SJ, you wrote: “…would of been already digging up the dirt on him (Sen. Obama) but no one wants to go there.” The Clinton — politics of personal destruction — Machine has been working overtime for months! If they haven’t found it, there may not be anything out there to find. Now as for Sen. Obama’s use of drugs as a youth, he woke up one day and realized he was on a path of self destruction. He made the very wise decision to quit using drugs and turned his life around. That is one CHANGE that has been very positive in his life. The fact that he has been very open about this is a sign of great character.

Posted by: James Danley | January 8, 2008, 10:20 am 10:20 am

Sylvia – The Modern Democrat Party is not the same as it was from JFK and Before, they stood up for national security.
Will some one tell Clinton that Johonson would not of passed the Civil Rights bill without the Help of the Republicans, and because he did pass it the Dems did not support him for a second term.
Now as far as comparing, it is funny The Dems try to compare themselves to JFK and FDR, but yet did not both of them stand up for our national interests and not cower. Last I heard Obama wants to accept our defeat against these terrorists. Hilary wants the same. So Let me Say it Obama and Hilary Listen up ‘YOUR NO JFK OR FDR’ Now lets get to MLK, he was a great man who led a cause peacefully asking for no more then equality (unlike the so called leaders today that embrace his name) but this was a domestic issue not a foreign issue.
All Three Liberal Contenders Obama/Hillary/Edwards are the same, they just speak differently – Obama is a Flash in the pants, all talk and looks but NO substance, he has not answered a tough question to date. he is a made up from the press. Edwards well he is nothing. Hilary if the choice was only of the three and no one else is a better pick (Thank God for the Republican party) She at least will be more moderate then the others, which is not saying much.
Can anyone say what Obama can do? No one has said anything he has done only that he talks good. Well then he should be a used cars salesman not President. We need someone of Substance not of looks.
Now All 2 of the Conservative Republicans and 1 moderate Republicans are very good and experienced unfortunately it looks as if NH is not going to choose one of them.
James D.- Yes I would love a Rice ticket also, but Lieberman only for National Security – His domestic issues are liberal but good on our defense.
Just remember one thing people all Military Drafts were done by Democrats!!!

Posted by: spock | January 8, 2008, 10:28 am 10:28 am

C’mon. While I stand for Obama, do you all really think he has a chance? The rallying cry for the Dem establishment has already been sounded and they are gathering to prepare the so called “firewall” for Hillary. Hillary will win because the media, the big money corporate leaders, and the powers to be will push her to the top and make sure she will win. The small guy or middle class really don’t have a voice but will say what they are told to say by the powers to be. At the moment, they are being told that Hillary is really sensitive, she cares, she loves us, is best for us….etc. So we will repeat this and ultimately vote for her. Whereas Mr. Obama gives us hope that we can someday voice our own opinions and not just deal with the status quo. No, I don’t think he is the saviour, but he is better than the 20 year dynasty we’ve had with the Bushes and Clintons. Do we really want 4 or 8 more years of this? Is that really change? Can she really say she will operate in a totally different fashion as co-president with Bill?

Posted by: P. Madsen | January 8, 2008, 10:33 am 10:33 am

I’m a Democrat — we don’t know how to beat the republicans anymore. If Obama is our candidate we can forget the whitehouse. Isn’t the US allowed to have competence in the whitehouse anymore?

Posted by: SteveJ | January 8, 2008, 11:09 am 11:09 am

Dissing JFK, RFK, and MLK’ all three who are greatly loved by pretty much everyone in America. For South Carolina that may be the straw that breaks her political back.
I am voting for OBAMA. Hillary keep digging that hole for yourself.

Posted by: Debbie | January 8, 2008, 11:14 am 11:14 am

Dreams are for dreamers — we have one in the whitehouse now. How about ability for a change. If Obama wins the primary the republicans will eat him for lunch — rightfully so.

Posted by: jon | January 8, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am

American voters need to wake up. This is not American Idol. We need someone who can run the country and I see nothing in Obama’s past that will provide that. He has nice speeches but I can get that in any history book. Could american voters really be stupid enough to elect Bush twice and then Obama? Ugh…

Posted by: sallyjo | January 8, 2008, 11:40 am 11:40 am

Listen to Jon and SJ. Obama is the Democrat version of Dan Quayle. He has never ever faced the type of pressure a President will face.

Posted by: Geevill | January 8, 2008, 11:44 am 11:44 am

I’m almost 50, and find myself taken up by the Obama phenomenon. Almost embarrassed by it–but taken up. He is tapping into the civic religion, in a powerful way, and into a widespread desire to leave behind what have been a depressing two decades in American political public life. Clinton’s hamhandedness in attempting to deflate Obama–she hasn’t laid a glove on him–is a reminder of an important fact: she is simply not a political natural, something that would limit her effectiveness as president. Her run-as-an-incumbent strategy and lack of a plan B also reveal poor political judgement.

Posted by: Matt | January 8, 2008, 11:53 am 11:53 am

Hmmm… comparing herself to LBJ, who inherited an unpopular war and left it much, much more unpopular. Recall that Johnson too was a man of great experience before he ascended to power, and left the office in a mess before all but stepping down in ’68. Choose your references wisely, Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: MB | January 8, 2008, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm

I don’t recall Obama calling himself MLK or JFK– But I do recall your husband, Mrs. Clinton comparing you to Mr. Nelson Mandela– disgusting for you to throw this garbage out– after Bill calling you better than Nelson mandela . Here comes the Clinton smear machine again.
Hold on for this disgusting ride of smear and run

Posted by: Jeff | January 8, 2008, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm

It strikes me that Sen. Clinton’s talk is of “I” (“I am running…” “That hurts my feelings…”) while Sen. Obama’s is of “You” (“Your turn to stand up…”).
I must admit that Sen. Obama’s “You” resonates with me more than Sen. Clinton’s “I”.

Posted by: Wayne | January 8, 2008, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm

What ever happened to the good old standards that our president should not have a blemish to their name, be a boy scout, have a good military background if possible, and all the other things we as a nation use to stand for ? Geez come on people this is the post for the President of the USA, not a 3rd world country. So we are now willing to accept ok this guy cleaned up his act so he is now viable? What America is now so short of good material we are all willing to overlook these spots and take whatever reasons are given in order to find someone to fill the gap? Well then why are some of you making such a fuss over what Bill did and asking Hillary to pay for it, what did she do? Why are all the Republican candidates being held under a microscope because of thing Bush may have done and you don’t approve of? Seems to me a lot of you don’t want to ask exactly what can this man Obama bring to the table because you cant say exactly what that is, you are just praying he brings something,no wonder I young people of so confused, standards are set at the top, once we accept anything just for change, and dropping the bar on what is acceptable or not in the end we end up losing everything.

Posted by: SJ | January 8, 2008, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm

In an interview, Hillary was read an Obama quote where Obama brings up MLK in response to HRCs “False Hope” comment in Sat. nights debate. Her response was to point out that King couldn’t have gotten the Civil Rights Act passed alone. What she failed to mention was that LBJ couldn’t have done it alone either.

Posted by: Barringer | January 8, 2008, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm

Would those who believe Senator Obama has no experience please read up on his experience? He has an extremely impressive track record of forging alliances with republicans to get good, solid legislation passed. What I also find impressive is his lack of grandstanding. He entered the U.S. Senate with all expecting him to act too big for his britches, as he’d become a Democratic darling and national figure before even setting foot on the Senate floor. He has done anything but that.
A good place to start reading:

Posted by: Pat | January 8, 2008, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm

To anyone who thinks Obama gives great speeches, but that’s all… please just read his book, the audacity of hope.
It’s all there for anyone to look at. If you want to know why he would make a great president read his book and find out for yourself. Better yet, get it as an audiobook and hear it in his own words.

Posted by: Adam | January 8, 2008, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm

Pat, I’m looking for info on Obama’s experience. All I see is 3 years in senate. That is the best we can offer for the leader of the US. I can quote historic leaders till I’m blue in the face but that does not qualify me to be president. I’m Democrat but if Obama wins the primary I’ll vote for someone who’s accomplished something like Romney or McCain. At this rate the Democratic party will disolve into obscurity.

Posted by: bob | January 8, 2008, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm

Hillary has a valid point — Obama may be a fine person and decent rookie Senator but he does not have the record of service to the nation that JFK had or record of service to humanity that MLK demonstrated. Notably, both of them, JFK in war, and MLK on the streets, put their lives in jeopardy for their causes. While Obama talks a good talk he has not walked in shoes 1/10th the size of those filled by either man.
Finally, I always find it ironic that LBJ is credited with being some great civil rights president, when in the 1950s, he opposed much of Ike’s civil rights agenda and worked behind the seens to fight the civil rights acts that were passed and pushed by Ike and Nixon, despite mostly Democratic Party resistance. I think it is about time that the historians start admitting that the Civil Rights movement started long before the 1960s and JFK was a very minor player and LBJ has a horrifically opportunistic and spun a continually deceitful record on the subject. He played both sides of civil rights in a most callous manner and should be remembered for all he did to set back civil rights in the 1950s.

Posted by: TC in NY | January 8, 2008, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm

obama never claimed to be JFK or MLK… if anything the comparison made in relation to Obama is RFK… and that is not misplaced becaused he created the kind of exictment RFK made in his day.

Posted by: mkdot05 | January 8, 2008, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm

Our least experienced president was Abraham Lincoln. He has served only one term in the House of Representatives. And that several years before he was elected president.
Our most experienced were Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan. Buchanan has been Secretary of State, Senator, Representative, Ambassador to England and advisor to 4 presidents: Jackson, Van Buren, Polk and Pierce. Hoover’s experience with getting relief to the European people after World War I and as Commerce Secretary should have made him the perfect choice to lead this nation during the Great Depression.
These two, with all of their valuable experience, left the United States with the two biggest crisis in our history, the Civil War and the Great Depression. It took less experienced leaders to lead the United States out of these holes. Experience has value, but pales beside the need for leadership.

Posted by: JLA | January 8, 2008, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm

I am an Indian and by that confession I was hoping to prove my credentials as being un-biased. I have lived most of my life in different countries of the Middle-East and India. I have never set foot in U.S
I don’t think you truly understand the importance the world attaches to your election process. The person who occupies the White House has the power to change the world for better or for worse. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that a lot of harm has been done in the past few years.
The world is disillusioned with your country. It needs to heal. Hate can not and must not win. Words are all u might have to judge your candidates. But truly, thats all u’ll ever get. Past record is useless. Words show intent. They show a promise of what can be. A dream if nothing else is better than a reality that burns.
I truly hope you choose Obama.

Posted by: A.J | January 8, 2008, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm

JLA, so based on your logic the less experience the better qualified? Wouldn’t you say Lincoln was an exception. In addition, don’t you think the world was a lot simpler in the day of Lincoln than it is now.
I’m sure Obama is a good man but we don’t have time for on-the-job training at this position.

Posted by: bob | January 8, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm

Your comments are well taken AJ. I think most people realize the damage Bush has done to our standing throughout the world. It is also important to realize the reason Bush has done this is because he is incompetent and should have never been elected to a position he was not qualified for — and thus we should not repeat this process based on a sound bite.

Posted by: sallyjo | January 8, 2008, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm

It’s official: Hillary is a loser. The comments will go farther and farther out there as Hillary becomes desparate. She does not know which end is up right now.

Posted by: Sean O'Brien | January 8, 2008, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm

First of all Obama didn’t compare himself to MLK and JFK.
Secondly. I’m from Iowa and got 3 negative phone calls from the Clinton campaign. It did nothing but make me more determined to caucus for Obama.
Obama is getting the Independent vote, the “white” vote, the “old” (like me) vote, the women’s vote, the “black” vote and even some Republicans – they showed up in my Ward and changed their registration (amazing!). This guy can win and he can do the job. Only those who haven’t researched this guy think he can’t win.

Posted by: Lynne | January 8, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm

Lynne, Iowa voted for Mike Huckabee also and Pat Robertson in the 2004 election. Do a little research — if I want religion I go to church on sunday. We don’t elect presidents based on it.

Posted by: bob | January 8, 2008, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm

HILLARY IS RIGHT. OBAMA HAS A WAY TO GO TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON. COMMON SENSE HERE PLEASE…GREG

Posted by: greg | January 8, 2008, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm

“A dream if nothing else is better than a reality that burns.” nicely said. Only those pathetic people will believe in this and even find solace inreading such lines.
Reality is Reality. You have a choice to ignore it and daydream about what could be. Or face it and come up with a solution to put an end to the fire that burns. It is not gonna be easy though. So we all havea choice. It’s nice to have someone who can talk the talk. But we need someone who can walk the talk.

Posted by: Susan | January 8, 2008, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm

Whatever he meant when Obama said that his wife will not let him run for presidency if he didn’t win this time. That four years from now he will be a different person! Things would have chnaged! I thought he ws running to bring change int he white house but is already fearing himself being changed once he gets there or if he doesn’t get there. if he has tru passion to help poeple he should keep working towards helping others no mateer what and when the time come to run again, shouldn’t he run again. Or would he have “Changed” then? So I guess now or never. Whatever! This doesn’t sit well with me.

Posted by: Kate | January 8, 2008, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm

OBAMA IS A FAKE.HE IS FOOLING ALOT OF PEOPLE RIGHT NOW.HE IS ALL TALK AND NO ACTION.THE ONLY PEOPLE HE CAN COMPARE HIMSELF TO ARE THE CHICAGO,ILLINOIS POLITTIANS.HE HAS NOT LIFTED A FINGER TO HELP HIS HOME STATE OF ILLINOIS.HE IS ALL SHOW FOLKS.HILLARY IS RIGHT ABOUT HIM,AND SHE ISNT ABOUT TO LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT.THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT OF AN ISSUE TO LET GO BY.

Posted by: john | January 8, 2008, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm

Oh, and all this boohoo piddly stuff about race? NOT a big issue to folks under 40, NOT a real concern for me, and is small minded to call him BLACK! He was raised multi ethnically, mostly white. Funny thing about how entrenched PREJUDICE is here in our backwards country called USA.. if someone has ANY African Blood, they are Black.. unless the “pass”. Whatever. funny thing is that you can go to Islands in the Carib that are almost all WHITE! However, once you get there, everyone is dark skinned just about! Why? Well, THERE if you have any WHITE blood, you are WHITE! So lots of Black White people in the Carib, and lots of racist White people up here. Seriously, think about your built in prejudices.. Obama is a talented man who happens to be half African/half White.. He is NOT a black man.. and there ARE no black men in the world.. only ones that are men, that happen to be black.
If experience gets us what we have, more and more countries and people in them hating America, an empowered and vitalized terrorist population, a broken economy, a broken health care system, then I sure want LESS of THAT kind of experience. What we need is wisdom.. Experience only helps when you deal with the same situations.. Wisdom helps all the time. When all the characters in this crazy puppet play were presented the same information, and most went for war, and a few, seeing the same information, came to a radically different (and now proven to be CORRECT!) conclusion, then it is fair to say that the latter are WISER than the former. Obama is WISER than Hillary. He also has more experience in public office (DISREGARD FIRST LADY time!), is smarter (top of his class), and most important (and obvious from the news!), he ENCOURAGES people! He has charisma. He has a public mandate. And.. he has WISDOM. Hillary does not.. she also sucks up so much PAC money I am surprised we don’t hear the sucking noise out here in Colorado (wait, I think I do).
Clinton IS yesterdays news. She is NOT an agent of change, she is only picking up that “selling point” due to the success of the candidates who did it first! She shows up with Albright, her husband, all their old cronies from DC and claims to be for change? I think not. Experience, or that is what they call it, got us INTO this mess.. we need a better way, not more of the same way. And Obama was up front about that from the get go, now others jump on that bandwagon. Edwards also has a great message, one I agree with, but Obama saying he will “clean house” and remove ANY influence from the rich and corporations from DC is why he gets my vote, as that has perverted our government.. which is of the people, by the people, and for the people, NOT of the rich, by the rich, for the rich! Ron Paul is also a very credible guy, though considering that every other first world country has national health, better benefits, AND a better standard of living and life span, you gotta wonder if he is right about limiting government.. but heck, anything is better than more Bush, or Bush copies, like Mitt dingleberry Romney (a snake oil salesmen!), Guiliani (what a nut, no character, just lots of free PR from 911).. McCain I respect.. and he is feared by many in Congress, they call him a loose cannon .. which in my mind means that he doesn’t play the same game they do, which is suck money out of us. Well, we will see how it plays out, but I do not see Hillary as deserving of nomination.. she has unearned fame from her husband, LESS experience than Obama (add up the years, and do NOT count First Chick time), not a standout in what she has done, not a visionary (actually throws stones at ones who ARE!) which we need, and really not engaging.. Obama is interesting enough that I changed my party affiliation from Independent (used to be Libertarian) to Democrat so I can vote in the Feb5 Colorado Caucus for Obama.. and that says something, got off my lazy butt and scheduled it in.
Wisdom…. we can all agree it matters, but what is it? When you look back, into the past, and find that all were presented with the same information about Iraq, and most decided War was the Answer, a few said it would be a mistake, and the former are proved wrong, and the latter correct, then the latter are proven to be wiser. Hillary is not wise, just a lemming. Hillary talks a good line, but in reality, she doesn’t have even as much experience (in public office) as does Obama (I do NOT count First chick time), what experience she does have doesn’t show much vision or wisdom, and her fame is due to transferance from her husband, and NOT earned by her own acts! Pay attention to that! And Obama? the more folks get to know him, the more they like him.. every bit of gain he has made was earned, not picked up by marriage. I don’t WANT more of the same.. I want vision, I want an end to the PACs and corporate buyoffs, money owning our systems, and that is Obama, or just about anybody other than Clinton! I also agree with Edwards a good bit, an ideal ticket would be Obama / Edwards.. Edwards is the mechanic, Obama the visionary, make it happen!

Posted by: Rocketman | January 8, 2008, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

No, I would not say that the world was a lot simplier in the times of Lincoln. Also, does that mean there can only be one exception and never again?
Obama has more experience as an elected official than all other of the main candidates. He is someone that has actually lived outside of the United States.
Clinton is viewed worse and worse in my eyes as the days go by.

Posted by: hawkrew | January 8, 2008, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm

OBAMA in 2008

Posted by: Tonya | January 8, 2008, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

I don’t think Obama has even been tested yet. And once he does it will be too late to go back — we will have another republican in the white house — you can bank on that. At least the republican choices are all better than Bush.

Posted by: bob | January 8, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm

If we were in any way serious about electing presidents, Bush, a fifth-rate thinker controlled by powerful others, would not be in the White House. Let’s face it, there have only been about four decent people, historic, important, wise, empowered, self-determined individuals in office as Prez who accomplished nation-saving tasks: FDR, George Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and LBJ who was forced to accomplish what he did by the civil rights movement and Viet War opposers. The rest have been either ordinary men, fools, or dreamers not up to the historic moment, or the ones killed off too soon: Woodrow Wilson, Teddy R.,JFK.
The office has always been open to the “man of the hour”–the one whose destiny has forced open a spot for him. Hillary’s destiny is not for this moment. Her mistake was in assuming it was.

Posted by: bopcity | January 8, 2008, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

Look to Dr Ron Paul , yes Dr Paul Let’s stop the government madness..

Posted by: Robby | January 8, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm

Well, Hillary Clinton is no Coretta Scott King and no Jackie Kennedy so I guess they’re even, except for the fact that she’s campaigning as the establishment candidate and the Democrats are showing up in record numbers to knock the establishment down.

Posted by: Russell | January 8, 2008, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO PROVE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES THAT OBAMA IS JUST USING THEM FOR HIS OWN GAIN.SHE WILL PREVAIL.

Posted by: john | January 8, 2008, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm

OBAMA AND HIS POETRY IS NOT GOING TO KEEP FAKING THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.OBAMA HAS BEEN EXPOSED.THE REAL TRUTH IS NOW GOING TO COME OUT.HIS CHOICE FOLKS.

Posted by: john | January 8, 2008, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm

“I don’t think Obama has even been tested yet.”<–Neither has hillary. What's with this bunk that she's "ready to be president"? Since when does "First Lady" qualify one as "tested" and/or "ready" for the presidency?

Posted by: Tony | January 8, 2008, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm

CHANGE is not about riding a WAVE, but going against the TIDE
It’s about challenging status quo, swimming upstream when everyone else is going down. It’s about THINKING for yourself and not doing something because someone on TV told you so.
It’s about showing endurance over years and years of experience, hard work and commitment.
So what the heck is this wave of change Barack Hussein Obama is babbling about??

Posted by: Matthew | January 8, 2008, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm

At least the republican choices are all better than Bush.
Posted by: bob | Jan 8, 2008 4:22:43 PM
You think??? Guiliani . . . better??? Obviously you know little about these folks.

Posted by: C. Wilson | January 8, 2008, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm

When I hear Obama speak, all I hear is cliches….”We have to lift ourselves up!…A new day has come…”-Obama…. blah blah blah
Can America be so foolish to elect a man of such relatively little experience and tested challenges? Is this country best served by having IOWA and NH start this off? I am tearing up because my country is going down the tubes and if Hilary can cry..so can I.

Posted by: Tamara McDonald | January 8, 2008, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm

That was very well said. Way to go, Hillary!

Posted by: levonjaw | January 8, 2008, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm

Name what Hillary has done in the Senate to enact change.
Nothing.
She’s a no nothing, do nothing Senator.
I’ve been mostly a lifelong Democrat, although have voted for a Republican or two on occasion. Pataki as Governor was a decent administrator with a noted exemplary record on environmental issues. McCain has a sense of independence which I respect.
I do not want another Republican in the White House and I don’t want a Hillarycrite in there either.
Obama all the way!!

Posted by: Paul | January 8, 2008, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm

I AM FOR HILLARY BECAUSE SHE DOES HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT AND SHE IS VERY INTELLIGENT.OUR COUNTRY WAS IN BETTER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT AND PEOPLE HAD JOBS IT IS A MESS NOW WITH PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOBS AND HOMES.
HELLO, OBAMA IS NO JOHN F. KENNEDY OR MARTIN LUTHER. HE IS TRYING TO BECOME A FAIRYTALE STAR.
PLEASE.USE YOUR SENSES AND VOTE FOR HILLARY.

Posted by: anna p jones | January 8, 2008, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm

IF WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE PRESIDENTS IN THE PAST, WHAT DOES EXPERIENCE HAVE TO DO WITH IT, DOES THAT REALLY MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT? LOOK AT ALL THE EXPERIENCE BUSH HAS, ETC, ETC ???, NEED I SAY MORE. EXPERIENCE COMES IN GETTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO WORK FOR YOU, PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS AND BELIEFS, A GOOD PRESIDENT IS A GOOD ADMINISTRATOR, LETTING PEOPLE DO THEIR JOB AND LISTENING TO THOSE YOU HIRED WHO SPECIAIZE IN WHAT THEY DO.

Posted by: BOBBY C. ROBERTS | January 9, 2008, 9:24 am 9:24 am

Lack of Experience: Case in point (Bush, Jr.) Shall we say any more?
Senator Clinton’s statement is valid and true and is a nice reality check for the fairy tale that appears to surround Obama campaign. Example occurred during JFK’s presidency, you remember “Camelot” was a fairy tale but after 2 years of presidency, he was assasinated. True civil rights work occurred with a bull dog named Lyndon B. Johnson and it took time after great success from the Montgomery Bus Boycott and many untimely killings that had press coverage to make America look like a hypocrite to the rest of the world. Pres. Johnson’s Vietnam war blemished his record and killed many U.S. citizens for nothing but some rubber and multinational corporation’s interest.
Obama is “hope” and no doubt he is charismatic as shown from his 2004 speech. But, Clinton is “reality” and with the mess that Bush, Jr. (lack of experience and our 21st Century version of Nero who caused the fall of the Roman Empire), we need a Clinton to clean up his mess. My goal is to see Clinton President and Obama Vice-President. That surely will scare the be-jesus out of the Republicans.
What people fail to realize is that Pres. Clinton was actually governor of Arkansas. He had political experience managing tough situations. Obama has none. That is why her criticizing his fairy tale delusion is valid. That is all Obama can rely on b/c he has no experience in politics. He is a neophyte.

Posted by: Knowledgeforreal | January 9, 2008, 9:58 am 9:58 am

“Can America be so foolish to elect a man of such relatively little experience and tested challenges?”<–What "experience" and "tested challenges" does Chillary have? Obama was a state Senator for eight years before being elected a U.S. Senator. He has *MORE* experience than that fraud, Chillary, with the "35-years" lie about her so-called experience. Is that woman even CAPABLE of telling the truth?

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

If Barack Husien Osama ooops Obama wins, America will be doomed.

Posted by: Rhebs | January 9, 2008, 11:23 am 11:23 am

Someone said what is Obama saying and I ask you, what is Hillary saying.nothing and if you go for those staged tears you will go for anything.I hate to say it women, just because she is a womwn is no reason to vote for her……

Posted by: Freddie O | January 9, 2008, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm

To Sylvia-
Obama isn’t Muslim, he’s Christian. As far as HRC being a lying woman, you may be right because her tears seemed theatrical and her snide comments annoy me. Peace

Posted by: coco_fiere | January 9, 2008, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm

I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but Obama doesn’t need speech writers. I’d be willing to bet that he writes all his own speeches. Do you ever see him looking reading a prepared speech? He either memorizes them or just speaks directly from his heart without the need of written reminders. I say that people should watch this and see if they notice this as well. It says alot about a candidate if they write there own speeches, not some drivel written up by a surrogate

Posted by: Mark McCollum | January 10, 2008, 9:38 am 9:38 am

Folks,
Obama uses a teleprompter, please research that for yourself if you do not believe this post.
Fact!

Posted by: Carl | January 10, 2008, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm

Dr BLT to Hillary:
If at first you don’t Succeed (Cry, Cry Again)

Posted by: Dr BLT | January 12, 2008, 1:20 am 1:20 am

I love Hillary and i know that she would be good president, i just wish people will see that, and stop the bull that she is a women, get over that fact, Lets have a change for once and let a women show that she can also do the job and god knows maybe she will do a better job then any men in the house..

Posted by: leo | January 28, 2008, 11:19 am 11:19 am

hi

Posted by: D | February 9, 2008, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm

I’m not apposed to a woman president, nor a black president, but I can’t see voting for either of them for that reason.
Hillary is making empty promises, because she ran the country for 8 years, and never did any of those things. Why should we believe her now. As a matter of fact. She CAN’T run for president because she’s already served 2 years. So There!!

Posted by: John | February 18, 2008, 9:54 am 9:54 am

If you want to determine how independent a thinker HRC is, just compare her comments to the media when she’s campaigning alone with those when Wild Willie there with her. She is a proxy Presidential candidate, just as she has been a proxy wife all these years. Theirs is a marriage of convenience, and I’m betting Bill hopes she loses, because the word outside is that they are headed to divorce court if she loses. I also invoked the memory of her tears over the weekend. That rogue cop who killed his lover and her unborn baby also tried tears too. Took a page from the Hillary Clinton Public Relations textbook. Problem for him was he’s a male, she’s not. So…guilty verdict…end of story. Hillary is a sham, and so is her philandering husband. We stupidly voted them in twice, and I’m fearful that we’re just as stupid now. I WILL say that this time it doesn’t really matter who wins. Whether it is Clinton, Obama OR McCain, America loses. So, flip a coin, throw a dart at a voting guide and cast your ballot for the loser du jour.

Posted by: Dan | February 18, 2008, 10:01 am 10:01 am

It wouldn’t bother me to vote for a woman, but it would bother me to vote for a woman who obtained her status simply because of her marriage.
Hillary would be just another lawyer in Podunk if she wasn’t married to Bill. That is no reason to vote her into any office, especially the presidency.

Posted by: Bob | February 18, 2008, 10:26 am 10:26 am

Hillary is a huge fake!! She has not done anything worth mentioning besides crying!!
Obama is the way to go folks! He has the leadership skills to bring this country together and end lift us back up.

Posted by: Ray | February 18, 2008, 10:47 am 10:47 am

I always was aware of the fact that Obama was listening to the speeches of JFK,RFK & MLK because he does not have the capability of forming his own speech. He used the words of all three of them but this generation is so dumb they don’t know the difference. They are blinded by him and don’t know the truth from the lies. How did they ever enroll in college. Obama is a fake and wants to make history as the first black president elected in our country. He should be running for president in Kenya where he really belongs. He was raised there and he should have stayed there with his people. He doesn’t have the knowledge and know how about foreign policy but of course he has two senators, Kerry and Kennedy to teach him. Hillary doesn’t need teaching she already knows what has to be done. And the jealousy against the Clinton’s is overwhelming by people who never accomplished their goals in life like the Clinton’s did plus the millions that they have. I understand Obama’s wife made him quit smoking and who knows if he is still boozing it up again. Voters getter wake up and face reality.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 10:53 am 10:53 am

Ray: What have you been smoking? Obama doesn’t know the first thing about leadership. And Obama talking about uniting the country? Give me a break. No president can unite a country. People are people and they have to learn to get along with each other. That’s how to unite. Its dummies like you that eat up his garbage and he has all this generation believing what he says. Get a grip on life. He is a first class liar and a copier of others speeches. Apparently college didn’t do anything for him. He needs to go back.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 10:59 am 10:59 am

mike: Obama is a smooth talker and he has people like you eating up the garbage he talks about. If he won the nomination McCain would wipe him out. I would like to see those two in a debate. McCain is more educated and has more knowledge of politics than Obama will ever have. He needs to read several history books on former presidents. He is only after making history and this generation of dummies are falling for his speech because they don’t have the brains to know better.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:05 am 11:05 am

Dr BLT: And its you that will be crying if Hillary gets the nomination. By the way did your mother every cry or does she just laugh at everything that’s not funny.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:09 am 11:09 am

JOHN: I agree with everything you are saying. Obama is a liar and a fake and does not makup his own speeches he copies from RFK, JFK & MLK. He doesn’t have the knowledge or capabilites of Hillary Clinton and never will. He should read history books on past presidents and get some experience. He really should not be running for president because he is only a junior senator and if he won the nomination McCain would wipe him out. He can’t compare to McCain or Hillary when it comes to knowledge.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:15 am 11:15 am

UA: You mean Obama’s false statements that he has people like you that don’t know any better eating up his garbage? Educated? On what leg. He doesn’t have enough experience to become president of our country and if he wins the nomination McCain will wipe him out. He is a liar, a fake and can’t think for himself that’s why he copies the speeches of JFK, RFK & MLK. He gratulated college and it did nothing for him. Get a grip on life and wake up.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:20 am 11:20 am

AJ: For your information I would be a fool to vote for Obama a good talker but a know nothing when it comes to politics. He only wants to make history as the first black president of our country and this generation of dummies can’t see thru him because they are too dazzled by his speeches of RFK,JFK & MLK. He doesn’t have the brains to create his own. Wake up, get a life and read some history books. JFK, RFK were very educated on politics and were in it longer than Obama. He is so desperate to make history I willing to bet he doesn’t sleep nights thinking about it.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:33 am 11:33 am

COCO: What is so christian about Obama the Muslim. Of course he is a Muslim but doesn’t want anyone to know the real truth. For your information he belongs to a church that does not like white people. Where have you been? That church is all black and and praises the leadership of Farrakah. He has people like you and many of this young generation fooled but he doesn;t have me fooled. I can read him like a book without the cover. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am

Patriot: And your don’t know what you are talking about. Obama would like to be like JFK and MLK that’s why he listens to their speeches so he can talk in the same manner. Where have you been all this time. Get real. Wake up. Hillary is right. I knew all along he couldn’t create his own speeches without some help from theirs. He even tries to talk like them. He is the fake of all fakes and if he wins the nomination I am willing to bet McCain will definately wipe him out.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | February 18, 2008, 11:45 am 11:45 am

Whether Obama had permission from Patrick or not to use his words (which weren’t his to begin with since they belong to Lincoln and FDR), the horror is that Obama may not know who they belong to if he says Patrick allowed him to use them.
Electing a President who doesn’t know whose words he is using when he plagiarizes is even worse than the plagiarism.
Running for office using the words of former Presidents is not just deceptive, it is ignorant. What about all of the youth who hear those words and attribute them to Obama, or Patrick, not Lincoln or FDR?

Posted by: Pat | February 19, 2008, 12:11 am 12:11 am

Of course Obama knows where the original quotes came from. He’s a Harvard-educated former professor. The Clintons are shamelessly throwing mud at Obama hoping something will stick. It’s utter nonsense. Do you think Hillary came up with the line “it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush??” No chance! Another thing to think about is that perhaps it’s neither Obama’s or Patrick’s line, but came from their shared campaign manager, David Axelrod. It’s not a secret that candidates use speechwriters! Kennedy used Sorenson, who not only wrote his speeches, but helped write his book. Note: Sorenson is now helping Obama’s speechwriters.

Posted by: youpeopleareidiots | February 19, 2008, 10:55 am 10:55 am

What about all the poor youth who think Jimi Hendrix wrote “All Along the Watchtower?”
Give me a break! This is a non-issue.

Posted by: thepooryouth | February 19, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am

Are we really going to hold someone’s name against them? Oh my dear! His middle name is Hussein! He lived overseas! His skin is dark! He must be a sleeper agent!! Grow up, people. We didn’t hold George Bush’s name against him…and speaking of plagiarism, I doubt “W” ever had an original thought or knew anything about Kennedy, Roosevelt or King.

Posted by: hussein?bigdeal. | February 19, 2008, 11:02 am 11:02 am

“He gratulated college…”
He “gratulated,” did he?
From Columbia and then Harvard Law? And then was a professor at the University of Chicago? And then was a legislator for the next 11 years…which is longer than Hillary has been writing laws? And twice as long as George W. was in government before he became president?
Did you have a point, other than you know nothing beyond the chain emails you get sent?

Posted by: Really Mariann? | February 19, 2008, 11:09 am 11:09 am

Leave a Reply

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