Political Punch

Lets call a spade a spade. Sen. Clinton is the greatest flip flopper of all times. She makes decisions based on what the polls say and not based on her conviction to do the right thing for the American people. As an American, I'm sick and tired of negative politics. We need someone positive to get something done for everyone in America. Read the writing on the wall and step down cause we are tired of your lies and fake tears. You only love voters in states you won. Someone of us leave work, brave the harsh weather for you and all we get is your middle finger. I was in your camp from day one, but I guess it's time to do better things with my time cause America has made a choice and it ain't you.

I have read, re-read the transcripts, and heard the audio numerous times - he's just pandering and trying to play it both ways; it's very political,
and hypocritical, and he's not owning up to it.

He could have just explained it - he could have insisted on explaining it. It wouldn't have taken much time. But he delayed, and hesitated because he had to come up with some kind of "tricky" answer that he didn't have ready. So instead he came out with a much broader and even more ridiculous attack ad against Hillary. One that is even more hypocritical - more of a departure than what he says he represents.

You are very, very wrong about the Clintons.

Why do you think Bill was called "the first black president?" Because he's so racist?

African-Americans loved the Clintons because of all the Clintons did for them.

Now sadly, in this race, everything that's said is being insanely distorted.

It's really gotten to the point where Barack can say whatever critical things he wants to say about them, but they can't say anything about him, without being accused of playing the race card, and more...

It's just a complete double-standard.

You could not be more wrong in thinking that the Clintons are racist, or are trying to make this about race.

I have heard many African-American political leaders in South Carolina testify that they know the truth - that the Clintons would never, never, ever, do that - that the Clintons have worked so hard for, and been dedicated to the African-American community for more than 20 years.

But the media will hype it, because the media thrives on sensation and hype. With truth and accuracy lost - for the sake of ratings. And many uninformed people will think whateve they want to think, and project things.

It's just the difference between people who believe most anything they hear or read, and people who have a longer term, more comprehensive, accurate knowledge of the truth.

These are dangerous times for truth.

It's like a rare gem that gets trampled and buried beneath the rocks...

*Cheers*

Lauren, Why doen't you go back and read the transcript of what Obama actually said about Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party during Reagans Presidency. Hilary and Bill Clinton distorted his comments. They also interjected race into the issue, not the Obama campaign. They REALLY want to stoke the flames of racism. They want to detract from who he is and what he stands for. They know that's the way Hilary will win. Their tactics are despicable.

And I find it funny that you call my arguments juvenile, when I am actually an award winning scholar.

And I never said anyone called me racist - I only mentioned it because that's what some people have been insinuating about the Clintons if they call anything into question about Barack. And it is profoundly ridiculous because they have always been tremendous race advocates.

It just shows how much information can be twisted and warped at times like these.

It's very sad.

I lived in this country as an adult during the Clinton Administration, and it was one of the best times for the socio-economic health and prosperity and optimism in the country.

And now, thank you for attacking me personally - that shows just how strong your understanding, logic, and arguments truly are...

When you lower yourself to that level.

You just don't want to listen to substantial concerns - that you can't refute.

I have presented plenty of facts and evidence - you certainly have twisted yours and not presented more.

*Cheers*

Socio-economically and around the world, this country thrived and prospered during the Clinton Administration.

Outside of poiltics and Republican attacks, there was a great amount of real - actualized, hope, change, unity, and growth!

Sure, they made mistakes. Every Administration does. An Obama Administration would make mistakes too.
But the Clintons learned from their mistakes (unlike Bush), figured out what the necessary changes were, and made them better as soon as they could, when they were in office. By their second term they were extemely efficient and succesful, even with a difficult Congress.

Clinton had exceptionally high approval ratings as President overall!

That is partly why he has been upset. He worked so incredibly, incredibly hard, and truly accomplished so much for the good and success of this country.

And now it's all being dismissed as "part of the problem" by Barack, when it wasn't/isn't part of the problem, at all.

The real problem has been the Republican "ideas of the last 10-15 years or so." And the Republican attack machine which brought us all the partisanship, division in the country, Iraq, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the bad economy. That is what is broken in Washington.

Not the Clintons, but the Republican "ideas of the last 10-15 years or so!"

It's all just so backwards! And wrong!

He blames the Clintons, and not the Republicans when it's the other way around. All so he can look like a unifer?

Is he unifying very well with the Clintons? He's been blaming them from the beginning, when it's not true.

It just couldn't be more wrong.

"...I lived through it all" LOL-- as if bill clinton's administration were some ancient bygone era. Your arguments throughout this debate have been juvenile in logic, and unsubstantiated by a lack of cited evidence.

also, way to call/bring attention to your ethnicity. no one here has expressed any interest to know your background and whether you're racist or not. as if somehow sharing the comment "...now if people are going to call me racist..." is strengthening your argument. looking through the posts i don't see anywhere that anyone has suggested "race" was a motive behind your juvenile arguments.

enough said though. i certainly realize the futility of discussing an issue with someone who doesn't exercise a capacity to make substantive claims...and so i will not be rebutting another one of your posts.

cheers!

Intially I respected him.

But because of his great and unadmitted hypocrisy (because he has been attacking the Clintons since the beginning of his campaign, saying that they are part of what's broken in Washington, when Bill's administration was one of the most competent, effective for both hope and change, and accomplished we've ever had. I lived through it all. )

And the divisiveness of the country has been caused by the Republican attack machine against liberals and against the Clintons because they were the Democrats in power.

But until Obama becomes more honest himself, until he proves that he truly can deliver more than all his glorious speeches, I have lost virtually all my respect for him.

Sad, but very, very true.

And now if people are going to call me racist (like they're calling the Clintons) due to the fact that I have a lot of serious concerns about him, and his true competency to run our country at this time - you should've heard what I think, and thought from the beginning - about Bush.

If there's anything we should have learned these last disatrous 7 years, it's that freshness, rheotoric, and likeability are not at all as important as experience and competency.

And all in all you're free to conveniently twist and manipulate things around in his favor, blame Hillary, and have him take no responsibility.

But has been being quite the hypocrite.

What happened at that particular point in the SC debate:

Hillary said that he [Obama] is the one who claimed he likes policies of the republicans.

Obama responded that he did not say he liked Reagan's policies.

Then Hillary raised her voice to cut off any further elaboration.

Now, why on earth would he continue to use precious public time to try and convince people who vote strictly among partisan lines not to punish him for mentioning some appicable strength in an opposition?

Furthermore, he's aired advertisements to counteract those same claims that Hillary and her supporters have made in regard to his Reagan comment....Hillary then pulled her ad, at which point the Obama campaign also pulled their ad (since there was no further need to explain or defend himself along those lines).

And let's not forget if you listen to the Obama interview he stresses "were" when he states that the republicans WERE the party of ideas...that Reagan had the ability to centralise people around a common issue.

All in all, you're free, as Hillary has also done, to feel/portray that Obama meant something that he absolutely did not say.

I have listened - numerous times, and that was not what he was trying to explain.

Plus he's had plenty of time and chances to explain it since, and he hasn't.

If you listened to the SC democratic debate, he did explain himself-- but incidentally was cut short by Hillary who spoke over his voice as he tried to elaborate.

My question to you is this:

What did he mean when he said the Republican party was "were the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so"?

Regardless of how false he is being and much he truly likes their ideas, it is misleading and deceptive, and gives their ideas credit that the ideas don't deserve at all.

He puts those same ideas down all the time. It's double-talk. It's exactly the kind of politics he says he's against.

Would you ever in a million years say that the Republican party were "the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so?"

It's duplicitous, and it's pandering, and he hasn't explained it or taken responsibility for it.

And that is wrong.

It's "changing positions." It's very hypocritical.

He would criticize Hillary for it, if she said something like that, he would say you can't trust her, and that is an unfair double-standard.

Look up the "Trinity United Church of Christ" website. Scary! I,m not sure how that will play a part in the White House. Any thoughts?

I support Edwards but I must say that phrase by Obama was taken totally out of context. Anyone with a minimum of objectivity and who takes the time to watch the whole video interview and not just that little 71 seconds quote, can see Obama doesn't say he likes the ideas of Republicans. This attack by the Clintons is ridiculous and not very flattering for them.

Here's just a little more of the New York Times Editorial Board's endorsement:

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of Americaâ's voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won't be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

*Cheers*

Dear Shane,

If you were paying attention:
I did answer your question about knowing she was born into a Republican family, and worked for Goldwater at one point. She has been a Democrat most of her life, by her own choice. But she is a good centrist, because she understands both sides. Her story is also a well-rounded American one.

I have been pointing out some of Obama's inconsistencies, twisting of the truth, lack of taking responsiblity, and hypocrisy, and you just don't want to see it.

What do you think he meant when he said that he the Republican party was the "party of ideas for the last 10-15 years or so".

And why won't he explain it or take responsibiity for it?

He tried to point out Hillary's inconsistencies often misunderstanding them, but at least she tried to explains them, she has every right to point out his.

And he should explain them.

Instead he tries to blame her, so he is the one "Saying Anything" to win, and being evasive, and hypocritical.

My arguments are not at all dumb - it may just be that you are unwilling to try to understand them.

Obama has no chance of winning against McCain. The majority will not vote for someone who has no real experience governing, at such a critical time for our country. What he says is nice, and people like it - but what counts to people in the end - is real proven experience.

The New York Times Editorial Board is
strongly endorsing Hillary for the Presidency, but they say some good things about Obama too:

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

And there's more, but I probably shouldn't post it all here...

*Cheers*

Heartlander, maybe you haven't seen a shread of the change that Obama can bring about because you don't do your research on the candidates.

Obama was an illinois senator from 1997 - 2004 and a US Senator since that.

During his political career in illinois he has worked to improve living conditions of socio-economically depressed residents,getting the state to pay attention to the fact that these residents were living in conditions hazardous to their health and change that. He got residents, who didn't know how to improve their situation, to organize, rally around the cause and bring about change. He personally went and meant with these people to pull them out and fight for their own cause.

He also worked to improve the school system in poor neighbourhoods.

In addition to this, during his time as a senator, he has voted to increase minimum wage, has voted to increase tax cuts on the middle class and decrease tax cuts for Wall Street.

He has had a record of being a consciencious non-partisan member of congress by not simply voting to oppose issues that republicans have voted for, but by refusing to vote unless the alternative was something he believed in (hence his 'present' votes).

Let's also remember he voted against the war in Iraq before it started unlike many people who were voting for it. Once the troops were in Iraq and were stuck in a dire situation with waining supplies and a president that had no intentions of pulling them out he voted to support the troops financially.

He's obviously not afraid to put his ego aside and to go for what he believes is right, even in the midst of pressure from some of his peers.

Lauren, do you realise how dumb your arguments are ? Are you even old enough to vote ? If you a little tuch in the head i am sorry but otherwise your really just a lair ! Do some research or something ?

A vote for Clinton is a vote for a republican victory!!

Like i wrote earlier

Lauren, would be nice if you could give some examples of what he has lied about ?

Or name some things from the past he hasnt owned up to ?

You didnt answer my question reagarding if you new she was a republcain and that she worked for and support Goldwater ?
Because i am interested.

Let me make that more clear:

Obama is the one demonstrating his double-speaking lawyer abilities, and how he will "Say Anything" to win, and then later not take responsiblity for, or explain what he said, and why he said it.

He is demonstrating that he is being very seriously hypocritical and duplicitous.

They are just saying that Bill should tone it down.

He is too angry and frustrated because Obama is trying to have it both ways.

He is the one who will "Say Anything" as he demonstrates with all his double-speak.

Clearly this is an irrefutable example:

What exactly did he mean?

The Republicans "were the party of ideas."

Why exactly did he say it?

To try to win over former Republican voters in the Nevada caucus!

Pandering for votes!

Duplicity!

And not owning up to it, or taking responsibility for it!

Yawn!!! Actually, double Yawn!!!
I have never seen a shred of evidence that Barak Obama can bring about change, and Hillary Clinton is, of course, a dyed in the wool centirst politician, so we can expect basically more of the same from her. Obama's campaign seems to be based pretty much on the fact that he can, on occasion, give a good speech (I've heard him several times and he can also be flat as a pancake). Politicians like Obama and Clinton are a dime a dozen. Ones like John Edwards don't come along very often. If you want change, he is the one to support. If you don't want change, either Obama or Clinton will do just fine.

Then what exactly did he mean when he said they "were the party of ideas"?

They didn't have more ideas!

Democrats always have lots of ideas!

I watched the taped interview Obama gave to the Reno Gazette. I would like to know how anyone could draw from it that Obama insinuated the Republicans had better ideas.

If i say that someone is wealthy, but i don't agree with how they acquired that wealth or how they spent it, is that a compliment? Absolutely not. It's a statement highlighting some strengths and suggesting weaknesses.

If he says that on average the republicans/reagan had more ideas than democrats in the past, does that mean he liked those ideas? no, it does not...it means he acknowledges they had more ideas, but the statement makes no comment on whether Obama LIKED the ideas. It's more like saying "...at least they were trying".

Even though he thought the Republicans were trying to come up with new ideas, he clearly didn't like them...since he opposed all the [republican] votes that the Clinton campaign suggested he voted for in the ad they just lanched. The Clintons associated him with voting against minimum wage increases and increasing tax cuts for Wall Street. All UNTRUE.

...then Willy has the audacity to tell CNN that Obama is trying to funnel mud through the media. what a freaking joke. Then why is it Willy that Senators and leading democrats in Massachusettes, Vermont, Illinois and South Carolina have all said that your behaviour has been inappropriate, and blame you of playing dirty politics?

The Ad about what Obama said is not lying. Obama is trying to have it both ways. His own version of lawyer double-speak. He tried to both give Republicans a compliment by saying that they were "the party of ideas" for the last "10-15 years or so."

Before that he said that their ideas had played themselves out.

He is pandering to both sides.

What disturbs me is that he is giving a false compliment to the Republicans, saying "they were the party of ideas",
when those were horrible, disatrous ideas.

And he implies that during those years, the Republican party had better ideas,
than the Democratic party and that is not true.

They might have had more streamlined ideas, but they were bad ideas.

That is not unification, that is deception and pandering.

It's manipulative politics, and it's duplicitous, and he's not owning up to it, but it's all right there, for anyone willing to hear it.

I am stunned..... the Clintons were the LAST people on earth who could resort to the lies and distortions that have been used against them by republicans for years and years. We're all exhausted defending them.... and the MOMENT they get the chance, they prove they've been exactly as the republicans claim all along.

I am incredulous to see Hillary allow Bill to go out and sling the mud for her...the manly male getting the little lady the job she wants...not at all concerned that she is not, after all, the whole woman running on her own record and merit, after all.

Finally, this nation has been injured.
We have a LOT of work to do. We need leadership that can get republicans and democrats to agree to the sacrifices necessary to get our financial house in order, get us weened from mid-east oil... we needed an Elder statesman, we need a trustworthy leader.... Bill and Hillary have forfeited both.

The way that I see how Hillary kick Obama's ***, I am sure she will make a good president.

There's another thing to be considered if you want to get a woman elected as president of the United States. If Hillary wins while standing in the shadow of her husband, letting him take all the political hits, making all the speeches on her behalf while cutting into her opponent, is this really a win for women? Do the men hide behind the skirts of their wives? If the men win, could it ever be construed that they only got it because of their wife's intervention? With so many capable women to choose from, who could step into the presidency in a minute, and do it on their OWN, why do we women stand by and let this happen? I think it's degrading...that's why I'm going for Obama....

All i know is that I’m tired of our votes not counting. I just came across “The Leagues” page on Facebook. They ask you to vote for your favorite candidate and when your done they give the current national and city results. Also they show the national top issue result. Make a difference show them that we actually care Its cool check it out people.

Obama models campaign on Reagan revolt

By: David Paul Kuhn
Jul 24, 2007 06:16 PM EST

Awash in money and publicity but behind in the polls, Barack Obama, advisers say, is planning a classic insurgent's campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton -- one that relies on a surge of momentum from early-state victories and faces a make-or-break test in the South Carolina primary.

Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.

The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won't prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership.

Obama's need to transcend conventional politics is evident by looking at the practical hurdles to his nomination. He boasts best-selling books and magazine cover spreads and -- most relevant to his 2008 ambitions -- is winning the fundraising race in both total dollars and with a record number of contributors.

But bundles of cash and good buzz have not eroded what most national polls show as a durable double-digit lead for Clinton, built largely around her nearly two-to-one advantage with Democratic women.

This has Obama relying on a carom-shot candidacy, in which, come January, he will need to exploit Clinton's weakness in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, then have nearly all the bounces go his way in other early contests if he hopes to compete credibly once the race goes national with voting in half the states on Feb. 5.

Obama strategists say for now they are not running a national campaign but are depending on what senior adviser David Axelrod calls "a sequential series" of victories.

This is why Obama is already on the air with television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and so far is out-spending Clinton in every early state.

The trend includes more than twice as much spending in Iowa ($1.6 million to Clinton's $839,000) and nearly three times as much in South Carolina ($350,000 to $120,000) in the first half of this year.

The South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is usually more than half African-American, and Obama advisers predict these voters will back one of their own to give him an essential victory a week before Super Tuesday.

History suggests the hazards of this momentum-based approach. Nearly every Democratic nominating contest for the past 40 years has featured some variation on the same script: reform candidates trying to use grass-roots energy and media momentum to beat rivals with more traditional profiles and, usually, more support from the party establishment.

Occasionally it works, as when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination on an anti-war message in 1972 or when Jimmy Carter bounced off an Iowa victory to become unstoppable in 1976.

Usually it doesn't work, as reflected in the experiences of candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley or, most recently, Howard Dean, who in 2003 was riding a wave that looked much like the one Obama is trying to surf now, before wiping out once voting actually began.

A close parallel to the strategy Obama is trying to execute (with a different conclusion) is the one that took Gary Hart to the brink of a major upset of Walter Mondale in 1984.

Hart stunned the party establishment when his future-oriented "new ideas" message led to a big victory in the New Hampshire primary. Mondale soon rallied by saying Hart's supposed new ideas reminded him of a fast-food hamburger commercial: "Where's the beef?"

Obama's hope is to answer that question most fervently by emphasizing that he opposed the war in Iraq from the outset.

Hart, who in addition to his own insurgent campaign also managed McGovern's in 1972, sees new vitality in the old strategic model, questioning Clinton as he once did Mondale.

"There still is an enormous number of people in the party who are unhappy with [Clinton] for what they perceive to be her vacillation on the war and her reluctance to confess error," he said in an interview. "People who care about these things remember when, remember how, remember who took leadership.

"She's one of the best-known women in the world," Hart added. "She's been in the White House for eight years. She's a senator from one of the largest states. And 60-plus percent of the Democratic Party wants somebody else."

Wow, it is truly amazing just how out of touch some of you people are. I'm amazed at the Hillary supporters. So lies and distortions are what we want to continue to run our country? It is that easy for you? Then you will eventually get exactly what you deserve, another president that has no respect for you and will 'say anything and change nothing'. Priceless! (I love that man!)
Please allow me to say I voted for Bill, and I have voted democrat my entire life. But what I have seen for the past couple of weeks....the lies, the blatant distortions, voter suppression (for crying out loud), just anything, no matter how dishonest, no matter how deceitful, just anything to win, has completely turned me off and away from hrc and her attack dog bill.
And for those people that are still spouting this '35 yrs of experience', please tell me what planet you are on when you can co-opt someone elses job experience as your own, just because you were married to them and skated around the inner circle. That doesn't make you qualified for squat! geeez, so many topics to cover...
C'mon ladies, swing your heads up to the light. Stop being lazy and do some research to find out the truth of what's REALLY going on. Do you honestly believe if that subtle message put out by Claire McCaskill was somehow ummm dishonest, don't you think someone else would have jumped on the bandwagon by now to call her out on it??? No, because she, just like all the others telling bill to backoff and shut up, have recognized that the clintons have CROSSED the line. That is not campaigning, that is called deceitful lying! DNC, the party of deceit and dishonesty. Oh yeah, that is a great tag to hang on the party. THINK people, THINK!!!!! My goodness, please THINK for yourselves.
If you don't like Barack Obama, that is fine, but don't jump on the wagon just for the sake of being on it, because at the rate the clintons are going, you will be on that wagon when they let the handle go while you're at the top of the hill!
Barack Obama authored two books, the first in which he describes his drug use....while he was IN HIS TEENS. My goodness, and all this ranting about him being on drugs. He was a teenager, for Christs sake!!!

And for all those folks that are saying what the clintons are doing is just politics, and oh, its just fine, go read the Audacity of Hope so you can see what Barack is REALLY talking about when it comes to politics.
As a matter of fact, Hillary had the audacity to stand on that debate stage and say 'this is not a game'! Give me a break hillary, as you and bill have turned this into the biggest, ugliest game I have ever witnessed....with all our lives at stake, how dare you!!! They should try campaigning with some honesty, just to see how that works out for them. Let hillary run on her own merit, not on bill's.

Barack Obama, please win this, and bring some honesty and integrity back to our country.

This is about WE the People, not just hillary and bill clinton!

And to answer the question, this old Democrat will vote Republican for the first time in my life, should those two win the nomination. And if the republicans win, then that is what we deserve for four more years.

Think about it, it really is OUR CALL!

and by the way...

digging up dirt on someone is a different ethical issue altogether from telling lies and distorting the truth in order to win. the former is harsh the latter is dirty.

when obama said that hillary was on the board of walmart while he was busy doing community service...that was harsh, not dirty. in response, when hillary claimed that obama represented rezko that was dirty.

and yes, it is very harsh, and probably not fair ground, to bring up bill's infidelity...however obama has never commented on that during his campaign.

to be quite honest though, i find it hard to ignore Bill's remarkable ability to lie so convincingly...even convinced his wife twice throughout their marriage that he wasnt unfaithful (Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky).
i also find it hard to ignore that hillary has been lied to and cheated on twice by him, but still seems to want to be seen as some kind of feminist or beacon of issues, like respect, particulary relevant to women.

Time and time again I see it here on this blog, the people who are being shallow and criticizing the Clintons for personal (marital) issues when Barack could be criticized for his own as well, like his drug addiction.

And you would say, well, that was in his past. Good. But you don't allow the same for the Clintons. That is a double-standard, and that is unfair.

Drug addiction is not somehow better than marital affairs, if you're going to judge people personally.

Dysfunction is dysfunction, and Barack has had plenty of it in his life too.

You have no real understanding of the depth and complexity of the issues and how this is such a critical time and we need the Clintons competence.

The Clintons brought actual real change and hope to millions in the 1990's. Our country was in one of the best positions it had ever been in.

There is so much mis-information and therefore so many ill-formed opinions. Don't just believe what you hear!

Just Obama has co-opted the words of Hope and Change, does not mean that other people don't represent them as well.

He doesn't exclusively "own" them.

The Clintons actually delivered on them.

Now that's real hope and change.

Not just words, not just rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the easy part that makes you look good.

The very fact that one of the commentors here brought up the Rezko issue shows that the Obama campaign needs to refute the lies the Clintons have been spreading. Hillary's statement about Barack representing Rezko has been proved repeatedly to be an out right lie. Yet we still have people here mentioning it.

Obama needs to somehow balance his time optimally between refuting Hillary's slander and of course addressing key national issues (which her tactic has been to try and distract him and potential voters from).

He has a really difficult task before him and it may seem as one commentor said a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation...but he can pull it off. He and his campaign staff seem to be dynamic enough

Can someone do the math on this 35 years crap that she keeps running on? Was she really working for America back then?

Scott says "If Obama's and Edwards positions were reversed,..".

Well, they can't. Edwards is a clean and honest politician. Obama is a dirty politician. For details, I refer you to Jake's other post: Rezko-a-rama.

It would seem that Obama would be danged if he do or danged if he didn't respond back to the Clinton's allegations against him. What's the problem with defending or addressing the allegations against him? If he didn't we all would say he's afraid or to weak in the way Kerry did with the swift boat issue.I personally will not vote for Hillary if she is to be the Democratic nominee! Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton? Enough is enough America!

I've decided that I won't be voting if Hillary grabs the democratic nomination. I can't stomach 4 more years of this partisan non-sense.

The clinton never-ending dysfunctional drama: nonstop controversy and misrepresentation, sexual harassment, perjury and coverup.

I am a democrat and now I understand why the Repubs hated them so. Why on earth would we ever let the clintons back into our lives???

Hills big problem is Bill. Too many interns in the White House with Bill hanging around and nothing to do.

The Repubs can't wait for the general election with Hill on top of the ballot,
presenting titlating senarios of Bill to the voting masses

So is this is Obama's shiny, new politics of hope bringing us together? Obama wants to be seen JFK, RFK, MLK, and Reagan altogether. Good luck with that. I will vote with pride for a strong, sensible, smart woman who's been working to better this country for 35 years.

Go Hillary!!!!!!!

Go Barack! Save us from the Clintons once and for all! w00t!

Don't forget that for most of Clinton's administration, the majority of our congress was republican. Who can forget Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert and their contributions? A ex-president who didn't retain a democratic majority shouldn't be bragging so much about his presidency. The democrats have a good chance of not only retaining but adding to the majority this year...but I see the majority at risk if a Clinton is on the ticket in any fashion.

It's real easy to spout that Hillary is lying and Bill is being a toughie etc.. But I do wish you all would take a real look at what Hillary and Bill are saying and you'll recognize there is much truth to the allegations they are making. Furthermore - it was Obama who started the petty attacks in the latest debate and whined like a pouty baby that he didn't know who he was running against! My goodness, he knew very well who he was running against when he entered the race. But it looks like he can't stand the hear and so is complaining that Bill is campaigning for his wife! Excuse me!! What kind of a President will Obama be when it comes to dealing with the trails and tribulations of running the country? Is he going to say, that's not fair - and I'm not playing - because it's too hard. ??
That's scary.
America was the leader of the world during Clinton's presidency.. what is your problem with that? You prefer its position today? If so keep the blinders on and do like the Republicans did and blame everything on the Clintons. You're falling right into their hands once again. The Republicans WANT Obama.

Why is telling the truth characterized as "harsh"?

(And how could anyone think the GOP would ever need help in designing ads critical of the Clintons?)

I admire Barack Obama's ability to set the record straight by simply telling the unvarnished truth. No lies, no smears, no personal attacks, no tears, no nonsense.

And Obama has the JFK touch of adding a little dry humor. I liked his answer to Wolf Blitzer's question about whether Bill Clinton was really the first black president (I always thought that was dumb -- saying he'd have to investigate to ensure that Bill was really a brother. I was a bit baffled by Hillary's exuberant interjection of "I'm sure that can be arranged!"

If Obama's and Edwards positions were reversed, I would expect Edwards would do the very same thing - call out the Clinton lies for what they are. I would be very disappointed if Obama didn't do this after the damage the Swiftboaters did to Kerry. I personally would love to see Obama as president and Edwards as Attorney General. Then you'd really see some things get done and investigated.

The difference between Clinton and Obama is so obvious, that it's no wonder Bill Clinton is desperate to knock Obama out of the race. Obama reaches out to all free thinkers, those who are independent or have problems with their party, and it doesn't matter if they're democrats or republicans, that rush of good feeling compels them to follow what we all know needs to happen...CHANGE. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that is loved by 80% of Americans instead of 20%? Wouldn't it be great to have a president that the people WANT to listen to instead of turning to another channel? Wouldn't it be great to have a president to speak of hope and a better future than a president who has preached fear for the last seven years? Wouldn't it be better to know that our problems will have a better chance of being resolved because congress LIKES the president instead of ignores him? We here in Iowa got it right the first time, before the Clinton Machine got knocked off their throne. What's wrong with bringing a little youth into the office? We have an intelligent, motivational, inspiring, young American man working his heart out to bring us together, and we here in Iowa know he can...that's why we supported him so strongly. Will we free thinkers be obligated to the Democratic Party? In my case and probably most others, no…my second choice is republican.

Hillary has brought this on herself. If McCain is the Republican nominee and she's the Democratic nominee, he'll definitely win: he appeals to independents, and Republicans who might not otherwise vote because of McCain's so-called maverick tendencies will turn out en masse to keep Hillary (and Bill) out of the White House. Only Obama or Edwards have a chance of beating McCain.

Can you stop with this Rezko claim and the praise of Reagan. Read the whole interview and let me know what's inaccurate. I'm also guessing in your fantasy world you're rewriting history and Bill/Hill were the epitome of honesty and integrity (althought its tough to forget Mark Rich and all those women). I volunteered on Hillary's Senate bid and was a big supporter, but no longer. It's time to be objective and look at both of our candidates (sorry Edwards). Hillary represents what's wrong with Washington, admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations. It's 2007 and we're not living in the Vietnam-era anymore. Sorry to break it to you all.

So we sit here and complain about being lied to by our politicians... and when we find one that is willing to stand up to those lies and speak the truth, many of you are against him for doing it.

If one doesn't support the truth-- and speak up loudly and firmly when it is not being told-- then we will never have the change we all say we want.

Thank goodness Obama is speaking the truth (and with a little research you'll find it IS the truth) now. Now more than ever we need a president we can TRUST!

This is mild compared to what the Republicans have on Bill over the last 7 years. Highly detailed Secret Service comings and goings - visitors. It is hard to believe that Democratic aspirations will hang on Bill's belt buckle, but it is so. Any bets Bill has resorted to form since leaving office? Stay tuned you will be hearing about it as soon as Hillary is the candidate.
Then what? No more Dynasties!

There's nothing wrong with saying the truth, and I believe Obama has done so with this ad.

I LOVE IT. Finally, the Clintons are being called on all the lies. They really will say or do ANYTHING to win an election...And that sounds an awful lot like George Bush to me.

It's getting ugly between Obama and Hillary. I don't like it and I don't like the way both campaigns are playing in the hands of the Republicans. I will vote for Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY VOTE IS FOR EDWARDS 2008!

Obama said" Hillary will say anything and change nothing? Well, what about he himself changing his story on his Rezko connections?
Rezko trial will start on Feb 25th and will be a beauty to follow. It's time to clean the house here in Illinois and expose those politicians that have ruined the State and have profited from their shady deals and corruption, the former Governor Ryan a Republican is in jail for corruption and the current one Blogojevich a Democrat will go to jail, that's for sure. Madigan, Daley, and the very well connected and always a "trooper" Obama will get some mud from it thats for sure too.
What troubling is the many ways Obama have tried to change the story about his relationship with Rezko. That's bad judgment, a character issue, or maybe there is something behind we don't know.
Obama is just another ambitious and opportunistic politician that does whatever it takes and go to bed with anyone that serves his career!
This story have some legs and will not go away. Stay tunned!

Here again everyone acts like there are only 2 people on the democratic ticket. Perhaps it is time for those that are disgusted with these two to look at Edwards again.

But despite these harsh words - I am voting for the Democrat, if only for their stand on issues. I agree with many, though the 8 mo. or 9 mo. abortion is pretty dreadful ( I love animals but have no kids. I can't imagine my pooch getting done in so its hard for me to think about an almost full-term baby). I am not against guns but machine guns might be a bit much. I think that private schools using our tax dollars to preach unintelligent design is a travesty. I think that putting Jesus in school requires putting Darwin in church. I think all americans are equal and if you are gay you are an american. If you use the bible to object to a law, that is putting religion in government and Jefferson DESPISED without reservation the runaway christian ideology. He believed in God but certainly didn't call him Jehovah. I think that if sentences were carried out that scared the sh*t out of people they might not commit crimes without thinking first. You want guns, wear them on the OUTSIDE so they deter the attack from the start. You see, I am not completely a liberal psycho. I don't think we should tax the rich only, but they should pay a fair percentage. Their secretary shouldn't be paying more then them. EVER. Give small businesses HUGE support and tax breaks. I'll pay half my medical if your huge corporation can spare a dime and help in return. I wonder: How many of you Obama supporters will vote Democratic even if he loses? I think most of you. But it would be interesting to here. Who is sticking with Democrats no matter what?

Older people unlikely would go for change ...

where as youth sees opportunities in adopting changes.

As a individual if you fail to adopt chnages in ur life you wud strubble to live....

and siniors of this country are keen to live the life the way it is with a better Healtcare ... they will vote Bill knowing he was a liar ..

Youth - actually unlike most of the countries in the world in USA siniors otnumber the youth... ...

so I'm sure if siniors tend resist change .Bill-hill win WH and continue to dominate family dynasty ..

my advise to all youth let us out numbers siniors this time and vote for Change ... I wud go for Obama .... he represents fundamental change.. If u dont like Obama vote Ron Paul

And if Obama thinks he doesn't know who he's running against sometimes, well he had better get a clue and do it quick. Because they are going to do to him what they did to Clinton. They are going to run commercial showing McCain like a god of the military, a hero which he is. They are going to show how long he has been in office compared to the half term senator. They are going to run Rezko ads and Walmart ads about his wife. They are going to show how his accent switches in an attempt to bait crowds into thinking he is poor and under privileged. They are going to run ads about that late term abortion bill he voted against, run that ad with crying babies and sad mothers. They are going to kick the holy living hell out of him up and down and sideways and frontways. He is an amature. They don't care if they lie. They don't care if they twist. And all his demands for apologies and setting his record straight are going to be drowned out in the message:

NOT QUALIFIED
NOT EXPERIENCED
ULTRA-LIBERAL
GUTLESS PRESENT VOTES
REZKO - 5 HOURS OR 15 YEARS?
POLITICS OF HOPE - NAIVE BS

that's a starter. Then after the convention, the republicans will get REAL ugly. And he is whining now? This is why they want him to win so badly folks. They are supporting his cause, pushing his name, feeling bad for him, hurting for him. They offer him advice and compliments. They want him to win so that he will get his butt kicked. They can't run against Hillary because we already KNOW the dirt. There is no new dirt to dig up. They have NO NEW AMMO against her. So how, after all their kind votes against, are they going to win? They can't. That is why they hate her. And that is why they want Obama. Wake up you glassy-eyed newbies. Obama hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to fight it out and win. He has shown that by whining for 3 months. He is arrogant, always right, won't debate policy, never takes responsibility for his votes, diverts attention through race, distracts detail-hunters with flowery speeches. His suit is beyond empty. It is a vaccum.

Bush is better than Bill as per honesty...

Bush likes Obama so as many Republicans.. Obama does like some republicans let it be Regan... ... its fair...

kill Bill-hill ...

this is a real battle btween age-group than race ... age > 50 vote liar Bill

age < 50 vote for 'Change' "OBAMA' and future for America..

Bill is now provoking that Obama is running for race ... I'm sure an intelligent person like obama never do this ... Race wud put him back rather front ... Obama is very carefull that Race shod not come into the frame of his campaign.. But Bill-Hill desperate to ride AF-One making this racial ... I had lot of fondenss towards Bill though he is a liar..Now hate him...

Vote Ron Paul if u dont like Obama

Welcome to big time politics Mr. Obama. You invoke Reagan and GOP ideas in the midst of a heated campaign in a blatant attempt to get GOP cross over votes in a close Nevada caucus and you get called on it. Grow up and deal with it. Bill Clinton is very right about at least one thing: the press picks up and runs hard with every line of attack made by Obama and they have given him virtually a free ride when return fire comes back.