Obama hits back with own Wisconsin debate ad

Obama- Please attack back. Hillary is adopting dirty politics..I am nervous.

Obama is ducking debating Hillary. There may have been a total of 18 debates, but not between Hillary and Obama. The field has two people now and now we need to know how they differ on the issues. This is a cheap stunt by Obama and his people to avoid the debate. He is a coward pure and simple.

excellent points. i will be so glad obama wins, hopefully team clinton won't cheat otherwise this should be over in about 60 days.

Thats decent answer. thats true. you dont need a another debater after 18 debates. oohhh may be she forgot to ask obama some queston!!!

excellent points. i will be so glad obama wins, hopefully team clinton won't cheat otherwise this should be over in about 60 days.

Why not debate? Barack Obama has the ability to talk the story. But where is the plan versus the promise. He can say anything he likes but when it gets down to brass tacks and dicussing the specifics of his plan he has nothing to offer. Hillary Clinton can offer more than words....she has substance behind her words in the form of a clear and concise plan of how she will make things happen.

I appreciate Obama's skill at handling the Clinton machines ads that border on slander. Hillary is very smart, but Obama has both intelligence, eloquence, and class. Also, people are more willing to work with him. Good luck to Hillary if she gets elected trying to push through her changes with Republican backing. It would be politically devastating to any Republican to go along with her reforms.

Good for you, Obama!

"I believe!!"

I think he should give her as many debates as she wants. It will be over sooner that way.

To Ellen,

At some point, people get tired of politicians quoting a bunch of numbers to them.
Please describe to this blog, what of substance does Hillary Clinton have? Oh, to her credit, she did try...and fail at getting health care for all. If the republicans didn't work with her then, what makes you think they will work with her now? I am sure once you have given this some serious thought...only the will you seek the "Change we can all believe in"

OBAMA 08

What Obama didn't mention was that those 18 debates stretch back way into last year, and included up to 8 participants.

How about some more one on one debates? What could it hurt? Is he afraid people will realize he doesn't have plans of his own, or the where-with-all to be President?

Get real, his plan will crack down on crooked lenders. I don't think so, he's a joke. Remember Rezko?

I’m glad to hear that Obama hits back and fights immediately. We don’t want a “debater in chief”! Obama needs to get out to the voters so they can see him up-close!!
A speech about Change will never grow old to me after 28 years of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and then Bush. I know we can stand to hear this speech several more time!!! The Republicans and Democrats have given the same tired policy speeches for years now besides JFK and Robert F. Kennedy. We need to be inspired besides to move Washington along we’re going to need a president who knows how to truly use the bully pulpit to make things happen.

ENOUGH with the debates - we know what each candidate will PROMISE to do. Shut up and just continue to show us what your real character is. Obama is calm, and never cries, never makes sneak attacks, and never changes his personality.

Hillary has been constantly smudging and changing facts about her dubious history, riding on her husband's blue dress trail, crying woe is me when things get a little tough, and keeps changing her media image;

first - shrill and nasty
then - laughing like a loon
then - teary and "I am jst a simple woman"
NOW - is back to nasty and shrill again.

Good work Evita. Go work your stuff on your loyal Mexican masses.

All I want to know is, what ever happened to this, Hillary?

"I am not interested in attacking my opponents. I am interested in attacking the problems of America, and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans; they deserve all the heat we can give them."

-Hillary Clinton, in a speech to the IA Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.

It is what it is...Obama won't debate. Clear. Simple. Thanks Obama--ts a "ducking the hard questions" policy that "we can all believe in"...

Yes..great mortgage plan Obama---I liked your Rezko lending plan better...330k off the asking price...Obama, "its a plan we can all believe in..."

Clinton is just hurting for air time. You want more debates? Two more are coming in the next couple weeks. Do these need to be a nightly event?

Another point: Clinton knows that debates eat up valuable time in preperation, looking up facts & figures, etc. She also knows that the more time Obama spends in the field with the people, the better he polls. She would LOVE to tie Obama down for a day or two before with WI primaries (in five days) with debate prep. Why should Obama waste 20-40% of his remaining time in Wisconsin when he can be meeting people face to face and answering them in person rather than getting ready for 90min on TV?

This is what the political strategists said Billary had to do. Fight hard (dirty?) and keep on the pressure. Obama is now taking the position of the front runner. He's trying to keep ducking and jabbing to keep his opponent from getting inside and landing a few body shots. Basically, Obama is ahead on points and trying not to get knocked out. This is no different than any other campaign that has been run in the last 100 years.

It's desame ol'
Elitist style of Show up on TV in a nice dress, Stay away from the people style of leadership she's used to.

Obama on the contrary meets the people in person and answers their questions.

It's typical Clinton doublespeak for Hillary to demand a debate in Wisconsin so that voters can find out where they stand on the issues....

...WHILE HILLARY CAMPAIGNS IN TEXAS.

Sen. Clinton, if you want voters in Wisconsin to know where you stand on the issues, try campaigning there.

Everyone who's watched every single Democratic debate from beginning to end, raise your hand.

I thought so.

I'm more interested in Hillary's interview by the Millwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board (assuming she can find time for that). Obama already has, and answered some tough questions:
http://video.ap.org/v/Legacy.aspx?partner=en-ap&t=m1202927630341&ns=WIMIL_Gallery&p=barack_obama&f=WIMIL

Why should Obama be more or less forced into more debates at the will of Hillary Clinton? Isn't the idea of campaigning going out and meeting the people you are voting for, not playing "Well my opponent voted for the war, I'm against it", etc game in boring ass debates? We all saw how the debates helped John Kerry back in 2004, and who ended up winning, George W. Bush. Obama knows that by debating Hillary and continuously debating her not only gives her free media attention, but is also a waste of time when he should be out there meeting voters, which seems to have worked for him thus far. Besides, you shouldn't be relying on debates to see where the candidates stand, you should take the time, go to their websites and find out for yourself where they stand on issues. Debates mean absolutely NOTHING, seen in 2000 and 2004, especially 2000 when Al Gore was running against George Bush, the anti Clinton sentiment helped get Bush elected, and the Swifties helped get Bush re-elected back in 2004. Hillary is nothing short of Al Gore and Kerry combined, except that Gore and Kerry actually cared about their voters, Hillary just cares about getting elected, just like her Republican counter-part Dubya.

You know, it can be hard some times to make time for debates when your schedule is crowded with annoying things like 8 consecutive victory parties and rallies where people are so eager to attend that you literally can't find a venue large enough.

This is such a non-issue. If Clinton could draw half the crowds he does, she'd do the same.

Obama is an empty suit. He doesn't have the substance to stand up against Hillary. He doesn't have the guts to debate Hillary one on one, because each time he does that, people will have a clearer picture of what he really is: an emtpy suit. That's what Obama is.

Having more debates gives a losing campaign (that of Clinton's) media coverage in a State where she's not doing much to win. A winning campaign doesn't need the debates because it's already reaching the people. No cowardice here, it's strategy and downright brilliant.

Well it's clearly an attack ad, and perhaps even a fair one. The problem is that Hillary has pledged in the past not to go negative. This is just another of the many promises she's broken in the campaign. Like when she "winked" at the promise of no campaigning in Florida. How someone conducts their campaign is a very telling measure of their character and how they will conduct their presidency. We need people who stick to their promises scrupulously. I don't think Hillary is that person.

Clinton has had much more EXPERIENCE with running national political campaigns. She has run the better campaign since DAY ONE!!!

If Obama were afraid to debate, he would not have scheduled 2 more of them. I wish I could love debates, but with questions on who is huggable, 15 second limits to explain a supposedly complex point, and no chance for followup questions, it's an exercise in hoping one candidate gets off a good oneliner, or one stumbles. Such must be playable in a 7-second bit of tape, of course--brilliant points or poor performances that take 5 minutes to unfold just won't cut it.

No one with access to this blog can possibly complain that they need a 21st debate to understand where the candidates differ--they have websites, 60-page pdfs of plans, there are dozens of reputable news sources with analysis of their promises and their records.

Kudos to Tom J at 6:18: If you want to know how the candidate responds when pressed on issues and allowed to answer in depth, find a good lengthy interview with a newspaper or editorial board. Obama has an excellent one, 48 minutes long, with the San Francisco Chronicle. (SFgate.com > Opinion > Endorsements) Anyone want to list some long, in depth interviews with Clinton?

Obama- No experience. Also, he has not done anything for Illinois.

Taxes are high and climbing every year here. Our Utilities are skyrocketing because all our Politicians are bought by the Energy Companies.

What did he accomplish for Illinois?

I think at this point one by product of being negative is to galvanize Dems into HRC and BO camps and get us wrapped up in in-fighting. This is a horrible diversion, since most of us, like the candidates to about the same degree are all on about the same page. I'm voting for Obama, for a lot of reasons that I won't get into too much, right now my main objective is to see my fellow brother and sister Democrats, progressives, lefties etc join with me. Maybe Obama wasn't your firs choice, mine was kucinich, but as voters we have a huge responsibility to get our values, and world view into the white house. I respectfully encourage all of those who support Hillery to at least give Obama a fair once over. He really is more than just good speeches, for example the Habeas Lawyers Support Obama ( you can google that phrase to get to their web site) Obviously Obama represents real "change they can believe in" I think that represents a real milestone in this whole thing that goes straight to the heart of what we are fighting for. Obama is smart and he knows what he's doing, he's not flamboyant in the way Hillery is, he's not movie star material, he works under the radar of the official "main stream" at times because thats the only way you get certain sensitive things done sometimes. And a lot of the controversies levied against him are rather overblown or just "gorilla dust." Give him a chance, thats all I'm asking.

Do we need another Clinton dynasty? We currently have a Bush dynasty, and look how bad it turns out to be. Do we want another Clinton? Do we want to hear another whitewater? Monica-gate? Heck, now that Bill is in the kitchen, maybe we can speculate on the "maid"-gate next ?

Go Obama! Vote Obama! He would be a great asset to all Americans! We need change, and real change!

Obama never makes sneak attacks, eh? Obama's whole "poor me, they're attacking me" was a carefully coordinated sneak attack, and a very successful one.

And Obama's aide asking Atlantic's associate editor Marc Ambinger, "So, when are you going to start looking into Bill Clinton's post-White House sex life?" That wasn't a sneak attack either.

And we won't mention how he lied while campaigning in Iowa and said he had passed legislation requiring nuclear power plants to disclose leaks -- he actually claimed he passed that legislation. That was a LIE. It never passed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&ex=1359694800&en=f2cec53f8b5de3bc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

He also lied when he said in one debate that he'd never advociated a single-payer health care plan. He did so, publicly, in a 2003 speech to the AFL-CIO. The exact quote: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program."

I'm not saying Clinton is a saint, but this Obama WORSHIP just nauseates me. He's no saint, either -- he lies just like any other politician. His ethics are no better than Hillary Clinton's.

Name one policy or personality difference we would be enlightened on in these debates? Everyone knoes these candidates. Everyone can go to their webpages and see the difference on policy.
This is about Clinton trying to get Obama to waste time that he will be spending on his ground game to get his vote out. Politicians that are losing always want more debates. Hillary is losing. They are parading Lanny Davis out there on the talk shows trying to justify stealing this thing at the convention.

I am glad that Clinton won New Mexico... because now we can include that with the other "states that matter". Remember, the only "states that matter" are the ones she wins.

Think carefully... Hillary cannot beat John McCain, so a vote for Hillary IS a vote for McCain. Hello 4 more years of Republican rule.

Secondly, if by some odd miracle she did happen to win, we'll have at least 4 more years of nothing accomplished because Republicans hate the Clintons (and they are not the only ones) and will not work with them.

BEYOND losing the General Election AGAIN, someone brought up the lies over Obama & Rezko. Try getting the FACTS. They were NOT in cahoots. If they had been there'd be article after article. It has been explored IN DETAIL. Hillary TRIED to promote rumors UNTIL the photo of she and Bill WITH Rezko surfaced. How fast did the Clintons drop the Rezko issue then?

Who is tied to more slimey fundraising deals? That's a no-brainer... Clintons have YEARS of sleazy deals on record - including the one that hit the headlines about Norman Hsu.

Check their Murdock donotions. Check into InfoUSA. Dickie Scruggs canceled a December 15 Hillary fundraiser (with Bill) after being indicted for trying to bribe a judge.

International sweatshop owners, the Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, after massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay.

That doesn't even count the past supporters, like Peter Paul, the convicted con-artist turned event producer who coordinated a massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser during the 2000 election.

If you want to explore who has the record of the "slime support" - it AIN'T Obama!

We can have one more administration filled with scandal, anger and NOTHING getting accomplished (on the SLIM chance Hillary could actually get elected), or we can vote Obama for REAL change!

Obama 2008 - for a REAL future!

Has no one noticed that there ARE debates scheduled? Her complaint isn't that he won't debate, because that simply isn't true. Her complaint is that he won't debate as often as she would like, because she needs all the free exposure she can get as she scrambles to deal with his commanding lead in fundraising.

I don't buy the excuse that there have already been 18 debates and that there is no need for more. First of all there has only been one debate that was between the final two Democratic candidates.

News changes everyday, new questions come to voters minds everyday, the opportunity to clearly layout your plans as to your visions should be welcomed.

This is not a election that is for a small district of one state, this is for the possibility of becoming the candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Voters need more than a 90 second capsule version of stump speech promises to form educated opinions. I welcome the idea of hearing as much as possible from both sides. I want as clear an explanation of each candidates stances up until one wins the nomination.

There are voters talking about switching parties, wouldn't you want to tell them clearly what your plan is to help them stay with you or cross over to your side?

I think the opinion of no more debates needed, is chicken poop and actually suspect.

I say bring on the debates, and if you don't think we need them, then don't watch them. Feel confidant that your choice is right and give your candidate the chance to help the undecided cross over.

Maybe the catch phrase should be No we won't and not Yes we can.

Steve Bailey
Hayward, CA

If someone puts out an ad that says what they will do in comparison to the other candidate it is NOT an attack ad. What a twist. Attack ads are mean and factually wrong. Period. Some so-called attack ads are true...does "Macaca" come to mind. It was true, hurtful, effective. It is when they aren't true that we need to yell about them. And the former Labor Secretary - what are his statistics that support what he says? I don't think that the republicans can work with Obama. Just my opinion. Here in Virginia the Republicans voted for Obama in our open primary becuase they believe that McCain can beat him. So do I. My friends told me they did. What does that tell you. Who exactly is picking the Democratic candidate for President?

Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten’s of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.associatedcontent.c…..ong…

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin “Tony” Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

Obama should be vetted and disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges — Obama needs to disclose why he is a Muslim and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It’s time to shove an introduction to this fake rip-off Obama and invite the thief pipsqueke to meet the Waukesheake Police Department.