Obama-Clinton: Would you rather fight or switch?

Why Hillary Should Not Be President

The only thing that matches the cynicism and Machiavellian nature of the plan to put team Bill-ary back in the white house (or is it Hill_Billy now?) was Karl Rove's plan to install Dubya. However, standing near 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 reasonably ride coattails to a command position. You either have leadership in yourself or you don't. Clinton hasn't shown it.

For example, look at how she has mismanaged her campaign, passing the buck to others when there have been failures. Case in point: poor judgment in staffing her campaign leading to overspending. (Lucky she had $5M to loan herself - wonder where it came from???.)

'[Campaign manager Pati Solis] Doyle did not tell Clinton how rapidly the campaign was spending money, according to one campaign official, who said Clinton learned about her financial constraints only after the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8.'

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/11/clinton_replaces_her_campaign_manager/

If Hillary can't manage her campaign finances, can't keep Bill on a leash, and can't find her own message -- how exactly will she lead the country?

Mr.Obama is a nice man in a tough world. We need leadership that has knowledge to lead this country with gusto! It takes a person who knows the ropes, in these tough times we don't have time to train a rookie for the highest office in the world.

Amen!

There is a difference, and I am ready to try honey instead of vinegar!

After watching the Founders Dinner speeches in Wisconsin last night, I realized what the problem Hillary is having. Since this campaign started, actually, even if you go back to Barack's first and second books, and the 2004 convention speech, there's a consistent tone, a consistent message. Hillary instead, is trying a new message every few weeks. The affect? Her speech left me wondering what she had actually said. It sounded more like an introduction to Obama.

Wow! Another negative media piece about Clinton! Gee, you guys just spin spin spin. Negative. How come the media downplyed Clinton's recent win in New Mexico. Wouldn't want to boost any momentum for her would we... Why has the media been treating Obama like a sacred cow?

As you saw the emergence of the Reagan Democrats, so you will see the emergence of the McCain Democrats. While I, as a white male, support Hillary, I shall join those democrats who will support John McCain.

Hillary seems to be prepared for another 4-8 years of bitter Capital Hill in-fighting and special prosecutors, where nothing is accomplished except politics. The Right has pushed partisanship as far as it can be pushed short of civil war, and Hillary is willing to play along for another shot at the White House. The Country isn't going to be better off for it.

I'm voting for Obama. He's determined to change the rules, and I'm determined to give him a chance to do it. He has already changed the discussion about what the Presidency should be.

Thank you, thank you for pointing out that this rancor is destructive and self-serving only.What has all this "us against them" mentality gotten us? Bush Sr., Clinton, and then Bush, JR...do we really want to do another round of Clintons. I, for one, had become totally disinterested and cynical about politics and government when I realized that the rancor had nothing to do with the American people, only furthering certain individuals prestige and pocket books. If you don't believe that, where did Hillary get 5 mil to lend to herself? (oh, and by the way, if she overdrafts her campaign...how in the world will she manage a 3 trillion $ deficiet?) but back to the point, Hillary and Bill did not just "earn" 5 mil plus that during their time in Government because of their charming wit and good nature. There is a lot money in using divisive tactics. That is why I am so thrilled after nearly 40 years as a voter, to find a candidate who is trying to "unite" rather than divide. Now if only the so-called super-delegates would get the message! Unfortunately, a lot of them made their reputation and money by fighting. Let's just hope that the super-delegates look at the numbers and realize that the American people are tired of politics as usual and begin backing the candidate of choice who has a higher vision of what America means and can become.

I cant imagine another Clinton in the White House and I think my lack of imagination is due to fear. Her husband disgraced the oval office and I dont understand how the American public could or would embrace her becoming president. After all, she has made it abundantly clear that they are a package deal. Not only because they are married but he has been and will be a close advisor (if not more) should she be elected. America has a short memory and its very very sad.

Hillary is not ready to lead this Nation. Her actions is of the Cowboy and Indian Era, and that we dont need.

What I find the most interesting about her arguement, "I am the most vetted", is that she wont release her tax returns. Geez I wonder why?

Great article, Michael. I think you've hit the nail on the head about why so many of us are willing to take a chance on Obama - battle fatigue.

If Hillary were president she wouldn't be able to get anything passed because fighting against Hillary would be so popular that congressmen would oppose her just to gain popular support back home. The quickest way to get re-elected or to overthrow and incumbent would be to rail against Hillary.

On the contrary, the case would be the opposite with Obama, thus he would be able to get a lot accomplished. Voting against Obama would be politically dangerous, even for red state Republicans, and thus he would be able to work well with the Congress.

The answer to Mr. Judgement's question is that she can't lead. She is a bad tempered woman who really does not know what to do unless it involves fraud (whitewater) pretended stupidity (Monica) or pretend tears (N.H.) Hampshire).

If Hillary wants a fight, she'll get one. But it's not the fighting that matters, it's the winning.

Like most voters, I won't vote for someone I don't trust. I don't trust Hillary Rodham Clinton. The country mostly survives its President. We know the election retoric rarely is translated directed to legislation, and that's a good thing. Better to vote for someone you trust, even if you don't always or even mostly agree with them. That's why I, and the majority of Americans are OK with either McCain or Obama: we trust them.

I agree with the above articles. Yesterday I reviewed Obama's 'The Audacity of Hope' and Clinton's 'Living History.' I much preferred the experiences in the former. Check them both out and decide for yourselves.

I WILL SWITCH TO A GOP VOTE AFTER 40 YEARS OF VOTING DEMOCRATIC.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I have been for a very long time. She sticks to her centrist position, no matter what. She does not waffle just to get votes - something everyone else does do, including her husband and Senator Obama. She's organized and focuses her presentations on solutions, plans, and actions. Sen. Obama seems to have based his campaign on intangibles; emotion, feelings, ultra high level plans ("Change" & "Hope"), etc. We all have HOPE, Senator Obama! We all want CHANGE! Please get to something of substance. One thing Sen. Obama is very wrong about is that he'll get me as a supporter / voter in an election between McCain and Obama. If it comes down to that, Obama's first big change will be to turn me into a Republican after being a Democrat for 40 years.
I have already written to the GOP with a request that they contact me for support if Senator Obama becomes the Democratic candidate.
Sen. Obama's arrogant assumption and statements to the press that Sen. Clinton's supporters will flock to him are simply insulting.

HRC quotes "of the people, by the people, for the people". I believe it is "government of the people, by the people and for the people". If HRC wins the Democratic nominaton by super delegegate votes and changing previously agreed to rules (not to include the delegates of Florida and Michigan where the candidates didn't campaign and Obama was not on the ballet in Michigan) and if Obama wins the popular vote,how does HRC reconcile this? If she can change her mind on Florida and Michigan delegates because it is in "her" best interest (not that of the majority), will her decisons in office be in "her" best interest or the interests of the people? This appears very sinmilar to GWB's approach to winning the White House which became a preview of how he has governed.

Either O or H will ruin the economy and broaden the gap between the have's and the havenots. Are they really stupid enough to believe that the answer is to take from the haves and handout to the havenots? We need programs to enable people to improve their lives, not just give them handouts to perpetuate their lifestyles and keep them voting for the Democrat who is running.

I live in Michigan. During our primary, I did not vote because the candidate I wanted to vote for, Barack Obama, was not on the ticket. That is because he kept the agreement resulting from the DNC rules that Michigan (and Florida) would not have their delegates seated due to their early primary date.
Hillary Clinton did not honor that agreement and her name did appear on the ticket.
Michigan Democrats had the same kind of choice that people have historically had in Communist countries, where only the official party candidate's name was on the ticket, so people could only vote for that person. Here in this country we have always done things more fairly - democratically.
Under the very clear circumstances that existed in Michigan during our primary, where only Hillary Clinton's name appeared on the ballot, it shocks me that she wants that kind of vote to count.
If she wants to be President of the United States, and she thinks she is entitled to the votes resulting from such a spoiled election process, she, in my mind, disqualifies herself from any further consideration for that Office.
She should instead take offense, if she is going to take offense at all, at Mr. Ickes' participation in authoring the DNC ruling that disenfranchised me and all Michigan Democrats, when he was helping to write rules for them, instead of for her.

Obama is a Ralph Nader inside the Democratic Party. The American people now sees Ralph Nader's perspective because it is embodied inside an institution ( Democrat ). However, corporate America will not allow this to happen. Mr. Obama is a very courageous man and he will only succeed if the people stand beside him. This is the hope that Obama is talking about. Hope of a real democracy of the people, by the people and for the people and not the corporations.

In response to Joe Woods and those who continue to argue that Obama does not have "substance," I'm wondering if you've watched any of the debates or checked out Obama's website. Yes, his public speeches-- particularly the ones the media replays-- are often less specific than Hillary's, but his speeches unite and inspire people in a way that hers never could. In other terms, his speeches work-- he would have never gained the popularity he has if he had focused on presenting specific outlines of policy plans to huge crowds. He has made a conscious political decision to use speeches to uplift rather than educate, but this doesn't mean that his entire presidential agenda is simply about making people feel good. If you took the time to research Obama on the internet, to listen to his debates, and to watch his interviews in the media, you would see that his plan and goals are just as sophisticated, if not more sophisticated than Hillary's-- with the added bonus of him having the capacity to use his message of change to unite parties and draw new people into the system in order to actually be able to get things done. Now that Obama has introduced himself to the country through his inspirational speeches, he has begun to make more policy-specific speeches and will continue to do so in the months to come. I know that this is running a bit long, but I want to add that Obama is not the first politician to work first to inspire and unite the electorate and then move on to the specifics of how he will make his promises happen. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Kennedy's Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You speech are not laundry lists of policy initiatives, they are "rhetorical" and passionate speeches that laid the foundation for the policies and plans that these leaders would ultimately use to change the country.

Enuf of the personal attacks; let's talk issues. If Hillary really feels so strongly about all the issues she is stumping for, why did she hold them back for "35 years" and not act on them until she was running for president??? Obama's Illinois and Congressional senate record shows MANY important bills he authored or sponsored having to do with real nitty gritty issues, e.g., childrens' healthcare, immigration, nuclear non-proliferation, government transparency. You will find significantly less IMPORTANT legislation under hillary's belt. Don't take my word for it, look it up in the Library of Congress record

Voting for "change" got us a Democrat controlled Congress, which has even lower approval ratings than Bush. The Senate still mangages to act like grown-ups and get bi-partisian bills passed but the House is too busy grandstanding and bullying to get anything done. (Look who decided to go on vacation instead of fix the wiretapping law). If America loves what Congress is doing now, we should vote for a Democrat. If we want change, what we need is politicians capable of acting like grown-ups. McCain at least knows how to work with both parties, unlike Pelosi and her useless gang of Representatives.

Our votes should not be cast for someone just because he/she gives inspiring speeches. Words are not actions. After 8 years of George W. Bush, we need someone who can make decisions based on experience and a specific, actionable plan. We also need someone who will stick up for our lower and middle class Americans. That person is Hillary Clinton. If you are on the fence, I implore you to watch the 2/24 debate and make your decision.

Tareyton smokers sported black eyes because they fought rather than switched (the original source of the tagline). Party loyalty will supersede candidate loyalty shortly and people will switch rather than wear a blackie

Obama can fight all he wants, but he will never win the office he wants. He is now saying he will carry Hillary voters. Obama...just keep hoping and dreamimg! It will never happen! And it is Hillary that is Electable and you know it. Your comment that "she has 47% against her righjt off" means she has 53% for her. And that, Bozo, wins elections! You would be lucky to receive a total of 47% from the General Population in November. And the DNC knows it. If you win this Democrat nomination, then you win the battle, but without doubt, you lose the war! Republicans win. Super Delegates had better start counting demographic voters and comparing them to 2004. If they do, they will vote for Hillary, as they are there to pledge on behalf of seeing a Democrat is ELECTED in November. Not to keep you happy. They know she can and will win the General Election and you will not carry the states needed to achieve this. Why don't you drop out!You are the Ralph Nader of this race. But at least he truly worked on behalf of ALL consumers. Your church and charity contributions speak to whom you truly represent. And it is a small minority of Americans when compared to ALL Americans across the country. Hillary will, and should be, the next President of the United States.

S wrote...
"In response to Joe Woods and those who continue to argue that Obama does not have "substance," I'm wondering if you've watched any of the debates or checked out Obama's website."

The is the whole difference between voting for Obama, or for someone else. The people who are voting for him believe every word that passes his lips, and disregard piles of evidence that even he doesn't believe those same words.

The rest of us, can see a con man, at least eventually.

I voted for Obama in '06, but I won't be making that mistake again.

Look at what he has actually _done_, not what he _says_, because they are two wildly different things. He says he will change politics, but is a product of the one of the most corrupt cities outside Washington, and has done nothing at all to change that, for obvious reasons.

"You will find significantly less IMPORTANT legislation under hillary's belt."

Someone needs to do some research, and it isn't me. For instance, who do you think created the
SCHIP program? That's important Children's Health Insurance Program, if you didn't already know. Yup, Hillary. How about that The Paycheck Fairness Act (HR.1338, S.766)? That's the one that, heaven forbid, gives women equal pay for the same job a man does. Is it any wonder women support her? A little research rather than to regurgitate a load of biased tripe is a good idea.
They're both good candidates, but the need for Obamabots to try to trash the Clintons is a major turnoff. Many of them are every bit as vicious and lacking truth as Ann Coulter.

Hillay's got my vote. I suspect my wife's too.

Obama is not merely an Empty Suit.

He's also a Blank Slate, into which voters can project whatever they want.

"After watching the Founders Dinner speeches in Wisconsin last night, I realized what the problem Hillary is having. Since this campaign started, actually, even if you go back to Barack's first and second books, and the 2004 convention speech, there's a consistent tone, a consistent message. Hillary instead, is trying a new message every few weeks. The affect? Her speech left me wondering what she had actually said. It sounded more like an introduction to Obama."

::

Thank you for this. Quite insightful.

AN OUTSIDERS POINT OF VIEW

Some have suggested that Clinton's supporters will not vote for Obama, I think not.
Hillary supporters so I understand are of a lower income while Obama are more affluent in less need of the reforms that both are offering on health, work etc.. they are not going to be motivated by Hillery from a monetary point of view, nor will they be motivated by what she has to say.
The Democrats will lose the new vote Obama has been attracting.
With elections being won by the fewest of votes, its all going to end in tears.

"Thinking the machine can be president is the same flawed view that allowed Dubya to slip in."

I have always voted Democratic, voted for Bill twice, seethed at the republican attacks, and voted for Kerry and Gore. I was not thrilled with our guys, truth be told, but I held my nose and voted for them anyway.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will hold my nose and do it again.

But I am getting tired of feeling faintly embarassed by our party's inept choices for presidential candidates.

I came of age thrilled by the call to honor and service of JFK, and Bobby, and have been grieving ever since.

Obama is the first candidate since then that I can endorse and support with no qualifications. I have given money, and am on the ballot as a delegate. I am not a party activist. I am new to all of this, and it's because I believe that words do matter, and character matters and I'm afraid that Hillary is another wrong choice for some of the right reasons.

Another thing that's bothering me by some of her supporters is the overt gender identity politics that layers so much of what they say. Are they really saying they want a woman no matter what, or that they want the best candidate for the nation's interests? I think some people need to remember that not all women feel this way, for starters, and they're using veiled man-bashing as an argument, which only turns men off. Like me. It's time to get past the battle of the sexes, just like it's time to put down the partisan cudgels.

Obama is the best choice.

Kerri said: "Voting for "change" got us a Democrat controlled Congress, which has even lower approval ratings than Bush.. . ."

Kerri, after almost two decades of Republican rule in Congress, did you really think that the new Democratic majority (which is a terribly slim majority) can change things over night? Sen. Obama has said repeated "change is going to come but slowly; it will not happen overnight." Martin Luther King said freedom was on the horizon, ". . .but I may not get there with you." Don't you think he knew it would take time? And unfortunately he died before it came to fruition, but it did come - with time.

Please stop with these ridiculous analogies that because the Democrats with a slim majority have alllegedly failed to bring real change in just 15 months, therefore all is lost if you vote for change. Give me a break. Just say "I don't support change, I support the status quo and HRC or McCain will get my vote." End of story.

Don't use ridiculous analogies to bolster your weak decision to ignore the opportunity for real change.

xspackle wrote...
"Obama is the first candidate since then that I can endorse and support with no qualifications."

Well, he certainly doesn't have any qualifications, you got that part right.

and "I am new to all of this, and it's because I believe that words do matter, and character matters and I'm afraid that Hillary is another wrong choice for some of the right reasons."

So characters matters, on that we probably all agree. A serious question then; it doesn't bother you that your candidate had to fictionalize his own autobiography by changing all the names so that nothing could later be verified?

What kind of man writes his own life story as fiction? One with something to hide?

I too have (almost) always voted Democratic despite not being enthusiastic about the nominees. At least they weren't a Bush. But I think it's a remarkable commentary on the Democratic party that they keep managing to dig up people who can actually lose to a Bush.

Maybe nominating the left-most whackjob they can find isn't the best strategy?

Obama is set up for a crushing defeat in the general election, His campaign rhetoic does NOT match his actions. Lobbyists RUN his campaign, he isbeholden to them.

Then theres this....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a9cjxFxamhN0&refer=politics

Obama lies.
True stories.

In response to David who argues that Obama is just another player in the corrupt Chicago system....What are the "piles of evidence" against Obama's genuine dedication to change to which you are referring? As a State Senator he did, in fact, go up against the corrupt political machine of Chicago and Illinois and advocate for the low-income and middle class citizens of his state. In a well researched article on Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate, Janie Scott (2007) of the New York Times writes, ".... Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies." Scott also goes on to point out that many state senate leaders tried to intimidate Obama and coerce him into becoming part of their machine, but that he consistently stood up to their "catcalls," "heckling," and general disrespect and fought for change.

The problem with McCain is his age and the fact that he is a Republican, regardless what the hard-core GOP-ers what us to believe. If the GOP would give up pandering to the Neo-Con's and the Religious Right I and many other independents might just vote Republican as I like their Economic Conservativism (dicounting Bush II who is NOT an economic conservative in any sense of the words).

The trap is this: Clinton would play to the Left Base in the Democratic party to get anything done, McCain will have to pander to the Right Base in the GOP to get anything done (including having a Neo-Con Religious Conservative as his VP to satisify them)

I'm not sure what Obama will do when faced with division in Congress, but I am willing to give something else a try, if he doesn't cooperate with both parties in COngress as President well we can get a different President in 2012. Jeb Bush ought to be running by then so all of the Bush-lovers can elect another Bush.

I am truly exhausted of the endless red-blue, 50%+1 stuff that Clinton's campaign seems determined to enshrine--it was the rule in her 90s battles, and it's inconceivable that we'd change that rule. They don't seem to care if they piss off every state that voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004, even though she needs those states to win. And Ds further down the ticket in those states need her not insulting the people who elected them to office.

What makes Obama supporters think that Republicans will stop fighting Democrats if your candidate is elected? Where is your evidence that anything will change?
The Clinton's did not start the partisan attacks and investigations in teh 90's...they were the victims of the attacks...Do you really believe that Republicans will just give up..that they will just sit down and agree to compromise? Have you seen some secret Republican plan or speech that the rest of us have missed? They will tear any Democrat apart from day one...no matter who we elect...that is how they have always governed and poetry won't change that...don't ask us to accept your premise that things will change if Obama is elected on faith alone...show us the evidence.

The GOP uses negative campaigning because it works. Obama uses it as well. He used it in Nevada and he used it in SC in trying to paint the Clintons as racist. The memo said it all. Obama had no problem with Blagoevich using negative campainging to beat Topinka. THe GOP is going to come at him whether he likes it or not. Is he going to cry like he did when BIll and HIllary used it? If so they will eat him alive. THere is a lot that Obama has to explain to the public. SInce the media will not do its job and vet him the GOP will do it for them. If the GOP could win with Bush against a war hero in Kerry what chance does Obama have? Remember Kerry was the medias darling against Bush just like Obama is against HIllary. The only question is how can the media justify attacking McCain the way it has HIllary. McCain is a war hero who spent years as POW being tortured for the simple reason that he was an AMERICAN. If that doesnt deserve to be president than I dont know what does.

Can someone please enlighten me on Hillary's experience other than being married to Bill Clinton?

Inspiring stories regarding Mrs. Clinton can be found here: hillarythemovie.com

It's quite simple I think. A much larger percentage of Obama's voters will go to McCain if Hillary is the nominee. Character is my number one issue, and Obama and McCain are numbers 1 and 2 in that regard. I know that others share my sentiment, so adding Obama to a Clinton ticket won't sway that vote in the least. The character of the ticket is defined by the nominee, and if Obama were the VP candidate, he would be doing what he perceived in his best career interest, voting McCain's decisive character advantage over Clinton would be in mine.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain.

S writes...
"What are the "piles of evidence" against Obama's genuine dedication to change to which you are referring?"

First of all, see the post immediately preceding yours.

If you need more, continue;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-garg/obamas-audacity-gap_b_84358.html

He now claims his kickback deal with Rezko was a 'bone-headed mistake', IOW, he admits everything, just expects us to believe that he, the otherwise smartest-guy-in-the-world, made a boo-boo that resulted in a felon giving him a couple hundred grand ( in land ).

"Obama immediately embraced Todd Stroger, calling him a 'a good progressive Democrat' who will 'lead us into a new era of Cook County government. To no one's surprise, since winning the general election, Todd Stroger has hired a plethora of family members and friends, while slashing essential positions and services, including nurses and law enforcement officials, and proposing massive tax increases. When asked about the situation at the County under Todd Stroger, Obama said he was not following it, something he apparently has the luxury to ignore.'
http://musing85.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/dont_do_it_sena.html

As much as you may like the guy, you can't seriously deny that he lies without compunction, or apparently even regret. He is a born politician in every bad sense, and can and will say anything, with a broad smile, if he thinks it'll get your money or your vote.

For more, hell, just read his site... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

"Barack Obama has played a leading role in crafting comprehensive immigration reform."

Oh really? When exactly did that happen? And where? Not in Illinois, and not in the US.

"Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government."

But, unfortunately, he has no interest in even 'following' the corruption situation in Chicago... which is in Illinois, which he theoretically represents.

"Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion..."

Wait.. religious conversion? What the? Hasn't he been telling us he was born and raised Christian, and never was a Muslim? I don't care what he is, but this lying is getting old. You're either born-and-raised one way, or converted, but not both. For that matter, in his pre-campaign autobiography, he says he joined his church to avoid the questions from the church-going folk he was trying to 'organize', but now, it's because of some conviction and faith. He will say whatever, whenever.

"Barack Obama has been a lifelong advocate for the poor..."

Excepting, of course, the 17 years when he was best-friends with the biggest slum landlord in Chicago. Other than that though, yeah, he's all for helping out the poor.

And please, entertain me by attacking the sources of all these different articles as somehow biased against your dear Obama.

If Senator Obama wins the nomination, I'll vote for him because he's a statesman, not a politician.

If Senator Clinton wins the nomination, I'll vote for McCain.

Btw, S, that 'significant campaign finance reform law' was declared unconsistitutional shortly thereafter. HB672 Public Act 90-737.

And from the same NY Times, regarding the homicide taping bill...

''We're not in favor of the mandatory provision,'' Mark Donahue, who leads the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago, said of the recording bill this afternoon.
- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E7D8123CF934A25754C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Obama really got the police behind that one.

I could go on researching the fantastic claims that Obama supporters make, but really, what's the point? Most of you believe that he'll lead us to the promised land, and nothing written, said, or done is going to _change_ your delusions at this point.

In six years in the US Senate Hillary Clinton has accomplished very little, and nothing of substance. she claims she has the experience and the toughness that the job requires. However she says nothing about judgment, and with good reason. When you examine her record and the numerous flip flops and position changes during her Senate tenure, a pattern of public opinion surfing soon emerges. This is NOT leadership. this is politics as usual. Hillary Clinton actually IS a far more sophisticated politician than Barack Obama. Because a truly sophisticated politician is a master of hedging, misdirecting, distancing, denying, and outright dishonesty and baldfaced lying. Barack Obama is trying to take the high road and unite people to work together, and to do it in an honest and straightforward manner, rather than just fighting one another in a partisan manner and canceling out each others efforts. Hillary attacks Obama and accuses him of employing empty words and Rhetoric where hard work and "More than words" are required. I would remind you that NO ONE is more a master of campaign rhetoric than the Clintons. All one has to do is just actually LISTEN to one of her speeches to hear...NOTHING. Absolutely no utterance of ANY substantive commitment to a plan, idea, or even resolution. With Hillary everything is a MAYBE. She offers NOTHING for certain and she demands ultimate power and control. It's time for a new direction in this country all right, but electing Hillary Clinton will just put us right back where we were before.

David, of the two candidates left one was born in Illinois (Hillary) and if you read the media reports the other was born in a manger.

David Hillman wrote: "...the otherwise smartest-guy-in-the-world, made a boo-boo that resulted in a felon giving him a couple hundred grand ( in land )."

Great post, Dave. I congratulate you on digging up this information when every investigative political reporter has missed it. Those idiots only found that Obama paid more than the appraised value for a 10 foot wide strip of land adjacent to his property. Excellent work! I'm certain the rest of your "facts" are just as true...

Obama is set up for a crushing defeat in the general election.

Posted by: Abomination | February 17, 2008 1:34 PM

Tell that to the Clinton campaign. Mr Obama's campaign is very well funded and organized. Mr McCain's on the other hand is fractured and underfunded. I don't know what basis you have for making these assumptions, but I take umbrage with your remarks. Obama in 2008

Michael Tackett, I would argue that The Clintons are doing a damn good job of preparing Obama for a Republican onslaught.

For politicians, it is not the person, it is the policy. There is no reason to think that Obama, McCain and Hillary Clinton will build a bettter relationship with Congress.
The fight will be where there is disagreement, and there are many wide differences in policy approach.

However, how do you reach across the aisle all the time? Sometimes you have to fight. For example, if there is a Republican Congress, and two USSC appointments, how do you "nicely" argue over the justices? Does Obama allow one liberal, and the next conservative? That would give the USSC over to control by conservative justices. Or two moderates? That still leaves the bench open a fundamental shift, especially if another President, a Republican, gets to choose down the road.

If it's a Democratic Congress, where will the fighting be in Washington?

So Republican Congress, we have big differences in universal healthcare, taxes, war, immigration, gay marriage, USSC justices, stem cell research, you name it. There will be fights, lots of them.

If it's a Democratic Congress, neither Clinton nor Obama will be fighting much at all.

FIRST OF ALL, IT TAKES A Lot of NERVE TO CALL BARACK OBAMA 'BOZO'. Your blatant dislike of him comes through quite clearly without the kidergarten-like name calling. I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN SERIOUSLY CALL HIM ANY DEROGATORY NAMES UNLESS MAYBE YOU'RE JEALOUS OF HIS MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AT ANY RATE THE MILLIOMS OF INTELLIGENT, COLLEGE-EDUCATED BACKERS ARE GOING WITH WHAT THEY HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT HIM BY EDUCATING THEMSELVES, NOT BY WHAT SOMEONE SAYS ON THE INTERNET. So RANT ON!!! And for those who keep bringing up the fact that the Democrats haven't DONE anything, every time they try, Bush VETOES it!!! So enough already!!!

The more money you accept from lobbyist the more you are a sell out. Right, wrong or maybe?

The Clintons believe fighting is good. They enjoy fighting. They never saw a fire they didn't want to throw gasoline on. They choose staff and advisors who think the same way.

Count the number of great statesmen who have done this. (Answer: zero)

Barack Obama is the responsible adult running for President. He attracts other responsible adults to politics and government. That's what we need for democracy to succeed. What part of that do people not understand?

Count me as another white liberal guy who supports Hillary, but will vote for McCain if she doesn't win the nomination. Bottom line - Obama is not tested, is not vetted, is not ready. The job is way too important to put in the hands of a stranger.

I would like to see Hillary win this election, not because she is way better than Mr. Obama, but she more credible than he is. Mr. Obama, scares me, he doesn't really have a position on any of the issues, just skirts around them. All he really is saying, it time for a change, well we in Canada had a Prime Minister who wanted change, M. Trudeau, who has left this country is in the predicament we are now in. We are not sure what is politically correct or what isn't. Being from a majority english background, we are being persecuted slowly. So all I can tell you peopley in America, be very careful who you elect.

I was 100% for Bill Clinton when he ran for President. For me, he was excellent in the Office although a much less than admirable person. I may be wrong, but I believe Hillary stayed with him only to promote her own political future. To me, she's all about herself and what she wants. And, I'm not downplaying all the worthy places she's worked in and for...Obama and others have done the same. So, I don't see where her contributions have made her anything special.

Regardless,I think Hillary is a very capable person, and would make a competent President. But, that doesn't mean she'd be the best person for the job. I cannot stand Hillary's divisive way of doing things, and if it is Clinton vs. McCain, I'm planning not to vote for the first time in forever.

Bill, you are not keeping up. Here, I'll quote the relevant information for you, from the link above...

"Barack Obama, for his part, went to Rezko for "advice" about how to buy a house he cannot afford and "poof" Rezko's wife pays full price for a portion of the property and Obama gets a discount on the house. A while later, he bought back 1/6 of the lot from her for 1/6 of the price she paid for it. How is that different from an interest free loan equal to the amount paid for that 1/6 of the lot? According to MyDD, Obama pays for the landscaping of the Rezko lot and may have been using it to park his cars because his neighborhood does not allow on street parking, in which case how is this different from rent free occupancy of the land?"

I know you believe it's impossible that the same media who gives Obama a break on everything else, isn't reporting all the details of this transaction, but most of us can figure out why that'd be.

But I'll play along anyway, how about you explain why a felon's wife just happened to buy, and leave vacant, the lot next-door to Obama's new mansion, on the same day they purchased it? A felon who also happens to be a huge fundraiser for Obama.

Even if that was somehow on the up-and-up, that was such a stupid idea ( or 'boneheaded mistake' if you prefer ) that I don't want anyone with that kind of judgement near the WH.

Change? Bribery is new Washington politics?I am tired of reading all the anti Hillary news.I cant wait for Rezko to put him where he belongs.

Obamam is not God, nor is he Moses. People can't see or think clearly with all the worship going on. NO ONE is a savior. The job of president is real and hard-bitten;not a place for pie in the sky speeches.
Go Hillary!

As a lifelong Democrat, I could never vote for Hillary Clinton; it is Barack Obama, or I stay home (or even vote for McCain).

Hillary Clinton will tear this nation apart. She thrives on a paranoid "blame everyone else" mantra that the country cannot handle. Her negative numbers are the highest in history, and frankly, educated people do not like her (I think they can see through her PR campaigns and weekly makeovers). Hillary is another Richard Nixon.

Obama is a hope. He is a leader. He is a uniter. My goodness, we need all of these right now. Obama will make our country better.

wow, this is a tough room. For those who say Barack Obama gives no specifics, I submit you haven't done any reading. His web page, his books, lay out specifics. In reality his views are not so different from Hillary Clinton's. I think Hillary's ok, but she represents the establishment.... the very rich establishment. I think she's more about the fight than getting things accomplished. And for the guy who says we 'don't have time to train a rookie' ...I don't think Obama's a rookie, but sometimes you need to bring in the new guy to get new ideas and approaches to old problems. I don't think Hillary can do that.

Oh, and finally, there was one guy who commented on universal health care being communist. Take a look at Denmark - voted happiest place in the world. Why? Because they have less to worry about. They don't have to worry about health care or elder care costs. Everyone deserves health care. I'm lucky I have good coverage. Lots of folks don't. The republicans may be able to "teach people to fish" but if people can't afford the fishing pole or bait... what's the benefit?

Obama's got my vote. Good ideas, the attitude and ability to work with both sides to get them done. He's what this country needs.

"Can someone please enlighten me on Hillary's experience other than being married to Bill Clinton?"

Hmmm. She has ovaries, so right there 51% of the country likes her. Other than that, I am at a blank.

Jay says: Can someone please enlighten me on Hillary's experience other than being married to Bill Clinton?

Let me enlighten you:

- Hilary Voted with Bush to send our brave men and women to Iraq for a dumb war.

- Also voted with Bush to go to war with Iran. thank God that did not go through.

- Failed health-care of the '90's and sure to fail again because she will not be able to pass anything through the congress.

- She was for NAFTA with Bill Clinton which made some of our jobs to go abroad.

- Hilary was the head of the board of wal-mart and she did nothing to promote unions or even women's right.

- l have more but for now, can the Clintons stop their negative campaigning, l really do not like such kinds of tactics.

What exactly has Hillary done or not done:

She has less experience than Obama. All you anusi talking about her experience never really say where it came from because you can't admit it's not there. If you are so sure, let's have your nurse operate on you, I am sure the watch surgeries all the time. Stupid, eh? So is Hillary position.

She's vetted? No way, Repubs can't wait to go ugly. Where's her tax returns?

She was for the war, now she's not

She was for NAFTA, now she's not

She was for drivers licenses for illegals, now she's not

She didn't give two shakes about MI and FLA before IA and SC, now they are precious to her

She will get ripped up.

The only position she didn't take, Monika did.

You're right, we won't have to relive that.

Bill lost the white house for Gore based on this, yes Clinton's put Bush in power. What possibly makes sense about letting them back in.

I can't wait until Obama gets in office and screws it up even worse than it is now, and all you jerks have to admit how wrong you were and eat every last brown-nosing word.

is it just me or is the Tribune covering up Obama's embarrassment of plagiarism?

How can you say Hilliary changes her speeches and objecctions. She consistently has explained her health care plan, timeline for ending the Iraq war and bringing our soldiers home, mortgage crisis, etc. While with Obama it depends on where he is and who is talking to, if it doesn't suit him at the time, he leaves previous statements out that may hurt at the time, or simply just repeats, how he was against the war....so what! We are there now, so explain how we get out. Also his persistent, change and hope. Come on, really, everone wants change and hope. He sounds more like a preacher than a president. He needs to sit back and learn for a few more years. It is not about preaching the good word, it is all about administering and acting upon the objectives before this country.

Hillary is the liberal version of Bush Jr. It's my way or the high way. Do we need more of that. This has been going on for more than 20 years people!!! Enough!!

How many out there are waiting for the 2010 U.S. Senate primary so that we can vote Lisa Madigan in and be done with the lack of reprentation we now with Obama.

this is good stuff. thank you mr./ms. blog.

In response to David H...

1)Obama never made any statement about the Clinton's being racist, nor did his campaign.... Some supporters did call attention to Bill's comments being racially charged, but these criticisms were made independently of the Obama campaign and without its approval.

2) Obama did have a long social friendship with Rezko but he is certainly not the only politician to have had ties to this man who, up until late 2006 was relatively well trusted and respected in both democratic and republican political circles.... In fact, Rezko was even a fundraiser for dear Bill Clinton, as well as Lisa Madigan and several other prominent politicians.(from "The Rezko scandal ...", Chicago Sun-Times ). Obama has admitted he was duped, severed all ties with Rezko, and donated all of his political donations to charity.... He made a mistake, he fessed up, and he did the best he could to make it right. Obama has never been accused of any wrong-doing other than having a personal relationship with Rezko. I admit that his friendship with this man suggests a certain level of naivite, but it does not mitigate the fact that Obama dedicated decades of his life to community organizing and advocacy in Chicago's poorest communities.

Immigration reform-- Obama drafted 3 amendments of the bi=partisan immigration reform bill which was passed in Senate on 5/25/06

As for your attack on Obama's claim that he "converted" to Christianity--- Obama was raised by his nominally Christian mother and grandparents, but it was not until adulthood that he was baptized as a Christian. In Protestant Christianity you can absolutely be born into a culturally Christian household AND convert to being a true, observant Christian by baptism. Further, in his book, Obama is only saying that the reason he attended church initially was to learn about the community he worked in-- he never claims that this is the reason he became a Christian.

I should add that Hillary has been no saint....
From the New York Times (1992, as cited in Wikipedia), " The Clintons had lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation; at the same time, their partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm and may have been improperly subsidizing Whitewater losses." Ms. Clinton was subpoenaed to produce her billing records, but claimed she couldn't find them....they were found by investigators 2 years late in her files.

Also, please see this (well-supported) Wikipedia article about Hillary's involvement in a pay-off scam in which Hillary had WH travel staff fired w/out reason, only to hire in their place an Arkansas-based company with whom she and her husband had a pre-existing "friendship"... In itself, this is no big deal, but Hillary consistently and adamantly denied involvement in the firing of these staff-members despite having been the one to author the memo calling for their dismissal...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelgate

I'm sure you could easily defend Hillary and argue these claims away-- my point, though, is that its hypocritical and arrogant to insinuate that Obama supporters are living a fairy tale when your candidate has her own dirty laundry.

The funny thing is, supporters of HRC subsist nearly completely on words alone - no one seems to document results. Getting away with that while claiming to be the Ms. Solutions is a benefit of inheriting Bill Clinton's political machine but makes it almost impossible for voters to evaluate HRC on her own merits.

Presidential campaigns are multi million dollar enterprises with thousands of "new hires". A campaign is management test run that is highly public so it's harder to hide behind a political machines when executive decisions go wrong. The buck stops with the candidate. (Those tears might have been the first realization of this fact.)

It's funny watching HRC mismanage her campaign while her supporters keep parroting her slogans. But the slogan, for example "Ready on day 1" are becoming ludicrous. Why can't they take a fresh look at this disturbing but well documented result?

On the other hand, it's fairly obvious Obama is a natural born leader and he is clearly managing his campaign competently.

The funny thing is, supporters of HRC subsist nearly completely on words alone - no one seems to document results. Getting away with that while claiming to be the Ms. Solutions is a benefit of inheriting Bill Clinton's political machine but makes it almost impossible for voters to evaluate HRC on her own merits.

Presidential campaigns are multi million dollar enterprises with thousands of "new hires". A campaign is management test run that is highly public so it's harder to hide behind a political machines when executive decisions go wrong. The buck stops with the candidate. (Those tears might have been the first realization of this fact.)

It's funny watching HRC mismanage her campaign while her supporters keep parroting her slogans. But the slogan, for example "Ready on day 1" are becoming ludicrous. Why can't they take a fresh look at this disturbing but well documented result?

On the other hand, it's fairly obvious Obama is a natural born leader and he is clearly managing his campaign competently.