'Sometimes You Eat the B'ar and Sometimes the B'ar, Wal, He Eats You' (Or: A Contemplation of Senator Clinton's Humanity)

Her 35 years experience? 2008-35=1973?
Someone above said he knew NOTHING about Barack Obama. Apparently the rest of the Clinton Supporters know NOTHING at all about Miss Hillary.

Clinton's first personal stint of employment was with the pretigious, notorious, Rose Law Firm.

Barack Obama turned down offers of very high paying jobs to work with the poor of Chicago as a community Organizer.

As First Lady, Clinton herself was involved in scandal after scandal. She blamed the Insurance companies for the failure of her Health Plan, but the reason it failed was because she demanded absolute Secrecy.

This habit continued with refusal to turn over documents, time after time after time, right up to the present Tax Records.

She and her hubby, STOLE White House Furniture and Paintings valued at well over ONE Hundred Thousand Dollars. A first for any Presidency.

Vincent Foster, supposedly committed suicide. Funny thing was, his records, incriminating to the Clinton's, disappeard??? Months later they were found, .... in Hillary's Office.

The list goes on and on and on.

Most of Hillary's personally sponsered Bills while in the Senate have been to recognize this or that public figure.

Do a search on each candidate.

Barack Obama's best one in my estimation, was the Bill he sponsered to stop making Injured Veterans pay for their meals, etc. at Walter Reed Hospital.

I guess I can see why Obama appeals to the more educated voters. They have either been paying attention or they have checked the records of each.

Making a decision based on no knowledge at all of the qualifications or history of one or both Candidates isn't too smart.

Could be very dangerous. There were more Military actions during the Clinton Co-Presidency than during the terms of any other American President. Each was applauded at the time by Hillary Clinton.

Satish,

Hillary is promoting sexist, stereotypical behavior by showing that she is dependent on Bill to win the nomination. I am saying that she does not need him and should be break free from the sexist stereotype of dependency - especially in a presidential campaign - using an ex-president of the United States. 'We' (Bill and Hillary) has no place in a discussion about Hillary's ability to serve as president.

There is a big difference between asking a celebrity or spouse to appear for/with a candidate and asking an ex-president of the United States to consistently speak for a candidate on the campaign trail.

Mr. Obama has been very gracious in his response to the 'two-fer' approach from the Clintons. Mr. Obama has said that BILL Clinton was successful in many ways during his term as president and has only asked Hillary to address both the good and bad aspects of BILL's administration when she talks about - Bill's administration.

In all honesty, I don't even agree with Mr. Obama's response on the 'two-fer.' I recognize and appreciate Hillary's efforts as First Lady - but I don't credit her with anything that Bill did as president because - she isn't Bill. She shouldn’t need to reference Bill’s accomplishments in her campaign. When she does, she just plays on the ‘we’ theme in that she is trying to score points with the public using – Bill’s accomplishments – but yet she wants to be viewed as being separate from Bill – at the same time. She can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Obama stated at the beginning of the campaign that he felt as if he was running against two candidates – and he is. I said unfair then and I still believe it is unfair. The Clintons are all about taking advantage – but some of us aren’t that stupid. One Mr. Obama is one Mr. Obama and two Clintons equal one Mrs. Clinton plus one ex-president of the United States. It’s a shame that Mr. Obama doesn’t have an ex-president willing to stomp fulltime for him but then again, he’d probably decline the assistance and move forward to compete and win – as an independent, competent, married to a non-ex-president - adult.

As a woman, I believe that Hillary should have run and 'interviewed' for the job - without Bill. I'd like to see a woman in the White House someday soon but the candidate will need to stand on her own two feet, not reference her husband's record/accomplishments when he was president, and not be dependent on the good old boy/gal Democratic party elite members for 'supervotes' if she can't gain the support of the majority of Democratic voters.

Change in DC means 'new' and there is nothing new about Bill and Hillary Clinton - or the way that they operate.

I'm looking for the candidate that is best for what my country needs today. I am sorry to say that Hillary Clinton (or should I say Bill and Hillary) aren’t the people that I want to see in the White House – again.

Why just tepidly denounce the anti-semitic remarks? Why not the racist and gay bashing stances? This was a time to truly show leadership in race relations and he FAILED. He should have been adament that I don't approve of any of Farrakan's positions. Farrakan is the equivalent of the Grand Dragon of the KKK. Would Obama not staunchly oppose the Grand Dragon's endorsement?

Redcat said "'On day one' Hillary showed up for the campaign - with Bill. No respect for a woman who thinks she needs a man - to compete for a job. The two-fer - is lame"

Redcat this is the most sexist and stupidest comment I have ever seen. If Obama shows up with Michelle and she campaigns for him that is okay but if Hillary shows up with her husband that is a cardinal sin and shold be immediately disqualified for the job she is trying.

Chuck: Do you think there might be some diffence in running the Presidential office compared to trying to reach all the states back and forth everyday on limited funds during a campaign? Obama has had considerable help with Kennedy and Kerry machines and contacts. The youth group for him has exploded. The cost of advertising is almost insurmountable. There are legitimate differences. Are you comparing apples to oranges?

Hillary is tough, and she is still standing. She may not have the black vote, she has had unexpected hurdles facing the race card played by Obama's camp, and the star-struck youth vote who never voted before is entranced with the word "change", even though they do not know what the word really means.

Topping all of that and dealing with it every day is the negative press by CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. They have degraded her at every turn, while they promoted Obama without any scrutiny. That sounds like a lot of free advertising to me---for Obama.

Don't count her out. The primaries are not completed, she is still standing, and she is tough!

It's the labels people put on the candidates that are disgusting, and it seems that Hillary has had many heaped upon her, especially by the media. You are correct in pointing out the problems many candidates have had over the years, but in this election, many of the major networks have gone over the top. Do you call that traditional journalism? We are in a mess. Hillary not only faces the usual political jabs, but much of what she has been called is sexist. If she complains about a valid debating point or a falsehood, is that whiny? I do not believe the male candidates have been called such. Romney's religion or anybody's religion is out of bounds, as well as candidates marital relationships. Much of the perverse and unfair negativity and lack of equal coverage lies at the feet of some pf the major networks. I am on the Internet now reading an ABC news site because I am fed up with CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. No it is not fair. Some of the negativity in a political campaign is expected, but this has gotten way out of the realm of credible journalism. They call it journalism, but 99 percent of it is spin, spin, spin! Even worse, it is tabloid fodder.

same as it ever was, you are so right about the alienation. what i find amazing is the incredible arrogance of his statement that he isn't sure his supporters would vote for hillary but he's sure hillary's supporters would vote for him. cocky doesn't even begin to describe it. but one thing that does describe is WRONG!!!

re sitting it out, i understand completely. but i decided keeping obama out of the white house is so important that a repub vote is a must - not only must obama lose votes, but mccain must get more than obama does! so i'm voting repub.

So Saddened:

I've only voted for Democrats since I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1972. Don't think I can vote for a Republican but I do think I'll sit this one out (can't believe I'm saying that) if Obama gets the nomination. I wonder if Obama has any idea how his campaign, his supporters, the mainstream press and the liberal press have alientated Clinton's core voters. Do you think he believes that we'll line up behind him? Guess he's in for a surprise.

s.b. - right on! (now my age is showing.) but i do have to give obama credit for one thing - he changed this dem who would rather eat a live cockroach than vote republican into a dem who will definitely vote republican this year. guess he really is the change candidate.

I have to say, I still don't buy the argument that Hillary has a lot more experience and is more "tested" than Obama. You know, Hillary would have us believe that she is some wise old veteran of the political world, but she's actually a junior senator. She's got, what? maybe 4 years more than Obama in the US senate. And this is her first political gig. Obama, on the other hand, served 7 years in the state senate prior to coming to Washington. He has spent more years in elected office than Hillary has, yet somehow Hillary is painted as the wise old veteran. I don't get it.

We could all feel sorry for Sen. Clinton, just as we could have felt sorry for Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, etc. We didn't pity them. They ran their campaigns and they lost. Tough noogies. Why on Earth should we feel any sorrier for Hillary Clinton? She has been at center stage of the national spotlight for months, which practically ensures her a prominent role in the Democratic party for life. And when she concedes, she'll go back to being... a U.S. Senator! Wow, what a sob story. Perhaps I'm just too young (29) to understand it, but the pity that this person seems to receive does not jive with her circumstances at all. She's had a pretty darn blessed life and career, all things considered.

Hillary Clinton came into last night's debate with so much pressure and incredibly higher expectations than one person could deliver. If the truth were told, many of us - and politicians too - would just want to pull the covers over our heads and wish the last few weeks away.

What we saw last evening was what separates her from so many - that fighting spirit and commitment to getting her message out. She has run on her substantive record. In her private moments she has to wonder - How has this guy who's come out of nowhere get so far. Because she's brilliant, she realizes that the media has given him a free pass (scrutiny will come later because what they build up, the media also likes to tear down.)He has also run an amazing campaign from a technological standpoint - who would have thought that text messaging would move beyond our middle schools and high schools? In the end though, he's a "created" candidate. One fashioned from the vision and dreams of his svengali - David Axelrod.

There wasn't a shred of self pity in last night's debate. She keeps on promoting her policies (many of whom he appropriated) and she is definitely a fighter.

Go Hillary. Our challenges are too important to put them in the hands of someone untested.

P.S. Did everyone see when he threw up his hands and turned to the (male) moderators as if to say "do you believe this woman" - I'd like to see a commercial made out of it. But then the network would suppress it the way they did the SNL Tina Fey skit.

Yes, Hillary is a human being. Everybody who has run for President is a human being, each with their own demons and insecurities. The question we have to ask ourselves is which candidate has been able to best overcome their internal struggles so that they have clearest insight into the state of our country and the best way to fix it. Hillary clearly has shown there are still too many internal struggles within herself to be able to fully invest in fixing our country. Much of her energy is still used to diffuse her own internal struggles. She's human with human emotions, but there's a reason why not every human is fit to be President.

If Obama can have OPRAH speak for him, then a statesman such as Bill Clinton is a definite acceptable sponsor of Hillary. At least he is able to answer questions about Hillary. Whereas Oprah is only able to build Obama up based on her "perception". Now we all know that Cindy serves McCain because she is beautiful. She makes people wonder how John accomplished that courting deal. I am sorry, but just because Bill knows more, doesn't disqualify his legitimacy as a supporter and speaker. It's a plus, just as Oprah's media power is a plus for BO.

Irma,

Bill is an ex-president of the United States. Oprah, Mrs. McCain, etc., are not. An ex-president’s spouse has never run before and so this race is very different. But, I maintain that Hillary should not need Bill - to represent her, speak for her, or to hold office. IMO, she should have done it – on her own.

“I would like to propose that all of us are affected by our environments and our parents as we are learning to be adults. It seems likely to me, she truly loved her father and also loves her husband, even with both of their shortcomings.”

I propose that as adults - we grow up, recognize that our parent’s may indeed have been angry or demanding individuals – and then move forward to decide just how much we want their parenting styles to determine who we will become – as adults. Many children love angry parents – and many wives love husbands- that disrespect them. Doesn’t mean that either choice is easy – or good for us. There are healthy relationships and unhealthy relationships. We get to choose.

“On page 32 of the book – “If there is a single defining thread of Hillary’s political, religious, and social development, it is her belief and determination, from her teenage years onward, that the tragedy of race in America must be made right…”

It would be helpful is someone could post a listing of programs/efforts by Hillary that were/are - directly targeted toward only African-American children and adults, versus whites.

“And even more than her husband, Hillary formed many of her closest friendships with blacks;,”

Is someone actually keeping count of the number of African-American friends that Hillary and Bill have – as individuals? And if so, why? Silly.

“As many are aware she has taken heat also for the time she retained her maiden name – but she stated, “her name was her identity, and would ensure she remained “a person in my own right” and “not a sacrificial political wife”.”

She certainly should have felt free to retain her maiden name. The ‘sacrificial political wife’ statement is too sad to comment on because Bill hit her with his game (followed by the Republicans) - while she was First Lady. However, note that she didn’t hesitate to mention that incident at the end of one of her debates to try to use it to her - political advantage.

“Bet you didn’t know this either, Hillary on a date in the 10th grade was asked by the boy had she ever ridden a skateboard, she hadn’t, but didn’t want to say no. So she got on the board and rode it without wiping out to the bottom of the hill.”

Challenges aren’t Hillary’s problem. Knowing that she can face them – without needing Bill – is.

I know REDCAT. Hillary having Bill with her is almost as bad as McCain having Cindy next to him everywhere. Oh wait, that does happen. Okay wait, then it's as if Obama got some big superstar to run a couple of rallies and dedicate t.v. shows to him. Oh wait, Oprah huh? Never mind REDCAT....you're sooooooooWRONG!

But then you are dismissing what we, the public noticed....It was during and after Iowa that CNN and MSNBC were on full force attack against Hillary. They spoke of BO from the beginning as though he was an inspiration. Yes, they spoke a little about qualifications, but the media has always titled her devisive. They also loved to remind the public of Bill's indiscretions. Hillary knows now that WE out here are sick of the bias, and she, feeling the support, is finally defending herself against having to campaign against the media. One only needs to consider the fact that most of CNN's and MSNBC'S pundits are Republican, you know THEY were never speaking highly of her.....there was a turn for the worst when they systematically were tearing her down and building him up. That's what angered women in the second state to vote; New Hampshire.

Jake, you make a good point. I don't think the media covered Richardson well at all. Nor did it cover Edwards as much as it covered Obama and Clinton.

The difference is: while Richardson mentioned it once, he let it go. Edwards mentioned it a few times, and then let it go. "Aren't there three people in this debate?" seems so prescient now.

And, surprisingly, Brian Williams on SNL played like the media had already chosen Hillary Clinton as the nominee, so it's odd that SNL and Hillary would take the opposite stance now.

Is it the natural process of whittling down the nominees--that we can't back every horse--or is it that the candidates love the camera when they have it, but let it go when THEY lose it, not when the media chooses not to be with them?

As we know, the media only needs a viable interest, and an interesting variable to keep track of a candidate.

So, if Hillary can go from Media-Chosen to Media-Frozen in a year, is that the media's fault or her own?

JPT - Not much to say now that it is the last seconds in the 4th quarter.. Sorry bud..HILLARY & HUMAN.. good try...HILLARY & POLITICAL ROBOT more like it..

OBAMA / CLINTON 2008 ...moving on to the Big Daddy MCCAIN