John Glenn suits up for Clinton lift-off in Ohio

"35 years of experience"???

She has held an elected office for 7 years! She can't even do simple math!

Obama is the real thing.

When was the last time a politician's words were made into a popular American song and then to see it downloaded 10,000,000 times in a week across the Web?

Obama is bringing real hope to the country. The changes he will bring will be a result of his ability to get people to take action as they're doing now for his campaign.

I believe in this candidate and after nearly 30 years of a Bush or Clinton in the White House we will finally have a candidate we all WANT to believe in.

And yes, America is sick and tired of Lewinsky, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, or cattle futures.

The real question is the potential for Clinton to steal the campaign with vote-rigging as seen here on YouTube testimony to congress:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

(click this link or copy and paste to view)

They say that Clinton cannot win caucuses, just where voting machines are involved. hmmmm.....

the tipping point has been reached. hrc should bow out and let obama unite the party and drive towards the presidency

WHAT USUALLY COMES OUT OF A SWAMP???? SLIME! STOP COUNTING SEN. CLINTON OUT OF THIS RACE! SHE IS THE MOST QUALIFIED OF ALL THE CANDIDATES TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. VOTE HILLARY CLINTON 2008!

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate for President. She knows the issues that are important to American families. She speaks clearly and in detail about her plans.

I voted for her in my state primary, which she won. I donated money to her campaign also and I will continue to support her all the way to the White House.

I encourage you to support Hillary. We need a president who will MAKE changes not simply TALK about them.

From MSNBC.com:
"Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, an Obama endorser, said in a conference call today that Obama's ability to campaign in every state in the country was a main reason for his support.

Doyle said Clinton would not be competing in Wisconsin, and criticizing her campaign for it, adding that voters there wanted to make an informed choice about the candidates, and Clinton being a no-show for the first part of this coming week deprived voters of that opportunity."

Of course this is not true as Hillary is running ads in the state and has called for a debate in the state which Obama has turned down. Will the media call Camp Obama out on this misstatement?

Obama may one day prove to be a credible and effective leader.

At this point, though, besides a lot of flash, not even Obama himself is sure that he can lead in the hostile, Washington, two-party system.

As you said, "...we all WANT to believe.." Sometimes, people who desperately WANT to believe will believe anything at all, even when there's nothing but hope to support the belief.

The only thing that matches the cynicism and Machiavellian nature of the
plan to put team Billary back in the white house (or is it HillBilly now?)
was Karl Rove’s plan to install Dubya. However, standing near a the leader
doesn’t prove you can lead. And, unfortunately if you inherit the
infrastructure of the dear leader, it’s hard for the people to evaluate
what’s you and what’s the machine. Hillary could easily be as big a failure
as Dubya who’s path to the presidency she would have more in common with
than Bill’s. She might have the judgment necessary to be in command hidden
in there but it’s impossible to measure — she hasn’t stood on her own for
many decades. Thinking the machine can be president is the same flawed view
that allowed Dubya to slip in.

Personal judgment is what counts - you can’t ride coat tails to command. You either have it in yourself or you don’t. Clinton hasn’t shown it. Obama has. McCain has.

It’s either Obama08 or it’s McCain08 then Obama12.

As you said, "...we all WANT to believe.." Sometimes, people who desperately WANT to believe will believe anything at all, even when there's nothing but hope to support the belief.

Posted by: MitchG | February 12, 2008 4:23 PM

Mitch,you hit the nail on the head. Desperation causes people to seek hope from the first, welling meaning, inspirational candidate. Obama is the future; he has not developed his D.C. skills with only 1 year in the Senate before deciding he wants to be President. Ambition is a great motivator, but blind ambition can destroy people and nations. He needs to hone his political, diplomatic, decision-making skills. His voting record proves he sits on the fence rather than decide "for" or "against" an issue. Cheerleading is great for a football team, but a candidate needs more than inspiring words to be a President for Change.

Guys please read this to understand why we should vote for Hillary.

Don't get sober with obama wine.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742140008&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

President Rodham-Clinton???? or would she settle for just Clinton... been there, done that!

As an Ohio voter and a senior officer attached to II MEF in Camp Lejeune, I may not agree with Glenn's politics, but I do respect his courage and service to the country. He is an American hero who deserves to be heard. Even Clinton says that when she accepted his endorsement. I wish she and other Democrats would extend the same recognition to McCain. Like Glenn, he has earned the right to be heard. He is an American hero. Semper Fi.

Wow, looks liek all the Keating Five will face off with Obama this election. First Glenn and then McCain.

Wonder why one of the bigger crooks in the Senate is endorsing Clinton. Not to take anything from his time in the Air Force and Nasa but he took money from a lot of people as a Seantor.

Like Mr. Payne, I respect Mr. Glenn's service even while not agreeing with his endorsement.

For a few posters above: Obama has been a Senator 3 years and has a substantive record, including work on nuclear nonproliferation, ethics, and transparency in government. In addition to his work in the Ill legislature, he brings years as a community organizer, the efficacy of which can be seen in his campaign. And a strategy that relies on 50 states and voters of all stripes, not just the Ds in a few big blue states.

John Glenn is an American hero. I respect him very much. I agree with his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President. Hillary Clinton is clearly the most qualified candidate in the race of any party. I don't want to see the Dems squander their best chance for victory in November by foolishly nominating Barack Obama who's simply not qualified to be President. Bonus, Hillary is a real Chicago girl, born and raised here! Barack lived in Honolulu and Jakarta, Indonesia??? Hmmm...

Give Obama a break - give him eight more years in the Senate to learn the inns and outs of the federal government before you elect him to the toughest job in the land. Don't set him up for failure - don't send an inexperienced if charismatic politician to take on Iraq, the economy, global warming, social security, etc. before he's ready. Dont doom him to mediocrity. Give him a chance to prove himself to be a good senator first. Then he'll have the experience to make a fine President.

Hillary Clinton has the experience - she was there in the White House for eight years observing and working. Lets not forget her husband, who was President, has not disappeared. Lets not forget how miserable his first term was and how much time it took our most adept politician to learn the job. Lets not forget how many truly enormous and intricate issues face the next President. Lets not forget theres more evidence that Hilary can unite the different factions than that Barack has - she's been doing that for eight years in New York.

Let's settle down and make a rational choice; Hilary Clinton is the right choice to lead this nation - hands down.

I cannot imagine sending a two year Senator who's been running for President for one year to the White House.

There is Bush And there is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

Bush was a party animal; Hussein Obama admittedly, and probably more than a party animal who inhaled and exhaled drugs!!

Bush was inexperienced - Hussein Obama GREEEEEEEN!!!! but a political opportunist. just ask RESKO!

TWO inexperienced Politicians in succession to go the WHite House if HUSSEIN OBAMA succeeds in his delusional quest for the WHITE HOUSE.

Bush has done so much damage to our country, and the next INEXPERIENCED OBAMA will follow with HIS sophomoric leadership!?

AMeRICA WAKE UP!

Good luck to Hillary!

I sincerely believe she is the best candidate for the job. There is so much we don't know about Obama, and it doesn't help that the media is giving him a free ride. He has a history of fence-sitting, so that now, people can just imagine that he agrees with them on issues, when in reality he stands for nothing.

Hillary has a history of taking stands on important issues. That is how change happens, not by talking about it.

Go Hillary!!

Obama has been a Senator 3 years and has a substantive record, including work on nuclear nonproliferation, ethics, and transparency in government

Posted by: dal | February 12, 2008 6:13 PM

He took his Senate seat in January 2005 and announced his candidacy in February 2007. Okay, 2 years in the Senate before seeking the White House. Very ambitious especially when he said, "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."
Not long enough really, if you consider the rest of the time he has been out promoting himself for President and missed a lot of important senate votes.

Here is some insight into his "indecisive" State legislature voting record:

"He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares."*

Obama can't seem to make vote "yes" or "no." The President of the UNited States can't be just "Present"; he has to DECIDE one way or the other not sit on the fence.

*http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

Obama... results coming in

LANDSLIDE

Obama... results coming in

LANDSLIDE

Obama is not the real deal.
While many people see Barack Obama as the fresh face for change in politics. I live in Illinois and have been involved with anti-Daley, reform politics.I don’t see him that way.

He supports mayor Daley even when he does not have too.

I had an “aha” moment the morning after Iowa. I finally understood the connection between Barack (or Barry as he was called in school) and Richie Daley, DaMAre of Chicago. I got why Barry endorsed Richie for reelection when there were two African American candidates running against Richie each of whom had credentials to be Mayor of Chicago at least as strong as Barry’s are to be President of the United States. Barry announced that Richie was fixing the corruption at city hall. So there was no need to elect an African American reformer as Mayor. And so Richie owes Barry a favor--help him become President. And so when Barry is President and the issue of the U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois comes up at a dinner between President Barry and Mayor Richie in a bistro to be named later Barry will return the favor by deciding Patrick Fitzgerald and his new bride won’t need to live in Chicago anymore. And all those pesky investigations of Barry and Richie’s mutual friends like Tony Rezko will go away.

Hillary's, ahem, "cabinet" is coming apart. Next rat off the ship!!

John Glenn!

Get off the Thrillary rocket!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQqFFSRPs0

"In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no.""

Obama was following the strategy created by the abortion rights activists to keep those bills from passing. By voting present, he provided cover for moderates who also voted present but didn't want a "no" vote to follow them. Thus, his 100% rating from NARAL.

When Clinton started spinning this, the NARAL people in Chicago came to his defense--how could the Clinton campaign be criticizing him for doing exactly as they asked, leading to the outcome they wanted? It only works if you take it out of context and assume none of your readers/listeners know anything about the context--not a campaign strategy I appreciate, and one I've seen all too often from the Clinton campaign. One simple fact I appreciate in Obama: he seems to think I'm smart enough to pay attention to sentences, or votes, or policies, as part of a larger context.

When Clinton started spinning this, the NARAL people in Chicago came to his defense--how could the Clinton campaign be criticizing him for doing exactly as they asked, leading to the outcome they wanted? It only works if you take it out of context and assume none of your readers/listeners know anything about the context--not a campaign strategy I appreciate, and one I've seen all too often from the Clinton campaign. One simple fact I appreciate in Obama: he seems to think I'm smart enough to pay attention to sentences, or votes, or policies, as part of a larger context.

Posted by: dal | February 12, 2008 8:41 PM

For your further reading

"Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: 'The decision generally is one that a woman should make.'"*

*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964967/posts

"

"35 years of experience"???

She has held an elected office for 7 years! She can't even do simple math!

Posted by: Reality | February 12, 2008 3:29 PM "

Well, you're forgetting the fact that she was President Clinton's number one adviser (when asked what it was like to be number two in the White House, Gore said to ask Hillary), and so I'd say that's a lot of political experience. So that right there is eight more years. She also served on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Nixon, and when she was the first lady of Arkansas, she did a lot of work with improving schools and hospital.

I don't think anyone needs to bow out of the Dem race until the convention. I wish Edwards had not quit so soon. All people in all the states should have the chance to vote for their favorite candidate.

Obama has TWO YEARS of experience on the national scene. He has very little experience or grasp of major national issues. He has a great speech writer, knows how to read of a teleprompter (yes, those great speeches are all teleprompter read RFK and MLK didn't have teleprompters) and knows how to sound rhetorical.

Of course, he deserves to be president now. He is compltetely untested, unvetted, and refuses to get specific on many important issues. He refuses to debate Clinton because he knows the comparison does not bode well with him (old political tactics from a "lets reject the politcs of old" candidate. How hypocritical.

If this where any other job interview, you would never hire the inexperienced candidate who barely has had time to get his feet wet for the most important job in the world.

Clinton is the best candidate to be president based on her experience, legislative accomplishments ability to understand policy and navigate beuracracy (the most active first lady in history with an actual office in the white house).

obama's lack of specifics while still winning frightens the hell out of me, i think however that as the focus goes to ohio and texas his lackings will all but be highlited, its funny, this is a weird election everything come sto march 4th if hillary wins both texas and ohio i think she would win if obama wins one he would win march 4th is the real decider.

[Obama has been a Senator 3 years and has a substantive record, including work on nuclear nonproliferation]

Er...."work," is not what Obama has done regarding nuclear proliferation. I'd refer you to this feb. 3 New York Times article detailing how Obama did everything he could to avoid taking a courageous stand on this issue. instead, he gave in, and gave way, to Republicans and nuclear industry people on this issue, while he was in the Illinois Senate, where he seemed to specialize in avoiding taking a stand, on issue after issue. the link is too long to fit, but you can google the headline from NYT,
"Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate."

it is a fairy tale that this person has taken brave stands as a lawmaker.

it is a fairy tale that this person is not as ambitious as any other candidate in this race.

it is a fairy tale that this person does not have overly cosy relationships with inappropriate contributors.

he is no less or more noble and angelic than anyone else in this race, and he is less prepared and knowledgeable on the issues facing the country and the world than senator clinton. not grossly less prepared, but the difference is noticeable nonetheless. and he is doing nothing to convince otherwise by coasting on that charismatic pop-star act he puts on during his euphoria-inducing, but content-free rallies.

infatuation is a bad basis for a serious decision or commitment---it has a way of crashing just as fast as it rose. that is what is going to to happen with obamamania---unfortunately, john mccain will be the beneficiary of that....

Jennifer, she was the #2 adviser? She didn't even have security clearances. She never sat in on a foreign policy meeting. The one major initiative that was placed in her hands, health care, was a colossal failure.

You can watch her try to take credit for a major diplomatic mission here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs

It's honestly dispiriting and embarrassing to see Mr. Glenn endorse her. There's just some Americana, triumphs, relics and glory, you always dream remains untainted.

He would be providing much greater service to his nation if he were to invest his efforts and expertise into revealing and researching the truth about UFOs.

Obama has won alot of independent and republican voters. Is this a ploy by the republicans to try to knock Clinton out. Will these people vote for Obama in November. Look at the states he has carried, many will never see a democrat win again.
Go Hilliary in 08.