Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama Hammers McCain on Lobbyists; McCain Fires Back on Ayers
- Obama's Big Cross Kentucky Flier
- Good Morning, 'Sweeties'
- The McCain Lobby Dance
- Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?
- McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas
- Stories From the Near Future
- Welcome to the Show
- Women Threaten Obama Boycott
- Tale (of) the Pin on the Donkey
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Was Bill Clinton Questioning Obama's Patriotism? | Main | Roger Stone and the Spitzer Scandal »
Clinton Campaign Finds a Friend at NationalReview.com -- Or Do They?
March 23, 2008 12:11 PM
Bill Clinton's remarks Friday have created a storm of controversy...what did he mean, if anything? Was he impugning Obama? Is the Obama campaign willfully mis-reading what he said?
The Clinton campaign this morning sent out a "Must Read" blog post from an unlikely source -- the National Review.
Kathleen Parker writes "In Bill's Defense," saying that the Obama campaign's interpretation is "nonsense."
Parker, who was at the speech in question, writes, "In no way did I interpret Clinton’s remarks as questioning Obama’s patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife’s electability against McCain, who, last time I checked, is the presumptive Republican nominee, and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination. He may have intentionally bypassed Obama in his leap to match Hillary against McCain, but he didn’t say anything that could be construed as questioning Obama’s patriotism.
Some Kathleen Parker columns the Clinton campaign won't be sending out anytime soon:
"Evoking a boomer past makes Clinton 'so yesterday'"
"The Rev. Hillary's Tin Ear"
"Clinton, Obama lack foreign policy work"
"When girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don't get to cry foul -- or change the game to dodge ball -- when they get bruised"
etc, etc...
- jpt
March 23, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (79)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27376724
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Campaign Finds a Friend at NationalReview.com -- Or Do They? :
They are playing to win. What's wrong with that?
I like Obama and I will vote for him if he gets the nomination but I also really like seeing a woman play hard ball politics for once.
Posted by: leslie | Apr 1, 2008 12:12:41 PM
Why Hillary Clinton is not accepting defeat, even though she knows she cannot win the Democratic Nomination.
She knows she can not win this year, but she is destroying Obama. She is hoping that when Obama gets the nomination of the Democratic Party for 2008, he has been damaged so much that he will lose to MaCain. That way she will have a chance to run and become president in 2012. If she accepts the defeat, with out destroying Obama, and Obama becomes president she has to wait for 8 more years (2016) to run. By that time she will be too old to run and her chance of wining will not be good, especially if she has to compete with Obama’s Vice President. She is not only destroying Obama, but also the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party leaders and super delegates should stop her.
Posted by: Carol Mills | Mar 27, 2008 10:07:34 AM
""Guess what? The fact that this National Review writer is normally hostile to the Clintons makes her defense of Bill in this instance more credible not less. Basic principle of logic, law, and one would think, journalism.""
I am going to take that quote and use it next Saturday to wash my hogs.
That's like saying that if Moon's propaganda outlet and right wing mind trainer, the Washington Times, wrote something one liked it would make it a legit news outlet. Just nonsense. Reminds me of reporters/pundits who say that since both sides criticize them then they must be doing something right. More hogwash. Fact is, most times one side is right and the reporter is too stupid or too cowardly or too eat up with his effort to push propaganda to take a stand.
Posted by: Pat C | Mar 24, 2008 8:38:33 PM
here's a news flash. Hillary made a speech on a future housing plan today in Philadelphia; what's so strange is that it is so similar to the memo Obama sent out March 2007 to Federal Reserve Chairman and Treasury Secretary. Hillary has a lot of gall and what she banks on is the American people not reading...
Posted by: tiredofthelackofknowledgeofvoters | Mar 24, 2008 3:45:41 PM
Clinton slick wording does not fool many people.
He meant what he said, when he described his wife and McCain as two candidates 'WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY',..but Obama doesn't.
Since when a candidate of one party praises the opposit opponent's party nominee against his own party's front runner?!
Only the Clintons will do this...keep praising McCain.
McCain is smiling and appreciating the support of the Clintons, who are giving him 'free commercials'.The Clintons don't care about destroying their party chances of winning in Novwember as long as they can have Hillary nominated and crowned.
Posted by: thunder | Mar 24, 2008 2:43:12 PM
The master of "the meaning of IS" is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is an attorney who learned his trade well, he knew exactly what impact his words would have, and there was no ingenuity in his calculated comments.
Posted by: Anonymouse | Mar 24, 2008 1:21:22 PM
Not to worry about Hillary Clinton dropping out. The upcoming fraud trial in California will take care of that. The Clintons are toast.
Posted by: annonymouse | Mar 24, 2008 12:50:35 PM
Guess what? The fact that this National Review writer is normally hostile to the Clintons makes her defense of Bill in this instance more credible not less. Basic principle of logic, law, and one would think, journalism.
Posted by: Dan S | Mar 24, 2008 9:42:47 AM
Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s patriotism. She has named Sandy Berger, a man convicted of taking classified documents from the National Archives as an unofficial advisor to her campaign. Sandy Berger, initially lied about taking the documents, and then said it was a mistake. Ultimately, Berger admitted to intentionally distracting archive staff to swipe 5 classified documents pertaining to terrorist attacks. He also admitted to destroying 3 of these documents. Berger allegedly took these documents to protect the Clintons from damaging information contained in these documents about their role (of dropping the ball) in terrorist attacks. I suppose that Berger’s unofficial role gives her plausible deniability in formally associating with nefarious characters but I can’t help wonder if Berger is receiving unofficial monetary compensations (gifts if you will). Next we can review the donations of Chinese dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers (up to a thousand dollars each) to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Funny how only 100 of the 150 individuals named as donors could even be identified as existing. Furthermore one of the identified individuals indicated he had never given money to Clinton’s campaign. It is puzzling why a dishwasher or waiter would NOT give up to $1,000.00 to Clinton’s campaign. Finally there is her husband’s pardoning of 4 men in New York convicted of stealing 30 million dollars in education aid. This was of course after their religious sect overwhelmingly backed her New York Senate candidacy and delivered her 1400 votes, compared to 2 votes for her opponent. It is amazing Bill and Hillary Clinton haven’t been designated the patriots of the millennium.
Posted by: Paula | Mar 24, 2008 9:25:44 AM
Tapper posts this article, including relatively positive defense of WJC, yet also apparently sees a need to post 4 negative links re HRC.
All in all I would have to accept that as "fair", by current media standards and media trends toward HRC. I guess given said trends we should be delighted to get 1 positive comment out of every 5.
Obama outspends her 4-to-1, Media "blasts" her 4-to-1, not bad odds when one is a fighter such as HRC. She just keeps on "dealing" with it, persevering despite the odds. That is one reason I support her. She can weather a storm and still get the job done!
In fact both Clintons are like the proverbial old watches that John Cameron Swayze was alway tying to boats and stuff. Like those watches the Clintons "take a licking and just keep on ticking".
16 arduous years and still standing tall, giving their detractors fits.
Posted by: Mike in Texas | Mar 24, 2008 8:33:35 AM
asd
You will be much more persuasive if you back up your opinions. If you don't, no one will pay any attention to you.
If you support Mrs. Clinton, know why and say why. If you do not back Obama, know why and say why. No generalities.
Start by reading about them. You will be surprised what you find out.
If you care about character, record and leadership, I expect you will change your point of view.
Posted by: Jacquie Kangas | Mar 24, 2008 8:24:56 AM
women who hate Hillary are just green with envy. They feel inferiority so they rather decide her misgivings and frailities over her monumental figure for women who can be as powerful as men. Obama is a mediocre and an insult to the Americans. We should write him off as nightmare so we can move on.
Posted by: asd | Mar 24, 2008 8:14:46 AM
The point that we are all missing about Bill Clinton:
Hillary Clinton has never been able to stand on her own two feet. This race is not her game. Yes, she wants the end power and glory, but it's Bill's game.
She stayed with an abuser who abused her over and over again, because he was the ticket to her ambitions.
I ask all women. Do you admire that? Is that what you want your children to look up to as a role model:
We negate all the strides women have made in the past forty years, if we support a woman just because she is a woman and ignore the troubling underlying history.
Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher, putting aside whether you subscribed to her politics or not, relying on her husband on the campaign trail?
Posted by: Jacquie Kangas | Mar 24, 2008 7:50:43 AM
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is giving a major policy speech on the economy today.. but who cares... when we can gossip about Bill Clinton.
I tell ya folks, as long as the american people allow themselves to be led around by the nose by the sensationalist media, we will NEVER get any good leaders. As long as we care more about what some comment some campaign surrogate makes, rather than what the candidate is actually saying about the issues.. well, we get what we deserve. More mediocraty and continue on the slow decent out of superpower.
Posted by: An opinion | Mar 24, 2008 7:40:04 AM
Hello Pennsylvania,
Did you know that Barack Obama will not tax seniors making less than $50,000 a year.
Imagine that!!
Posted by: Jacquie Kangas | Mar 24, 2008 7:39:17 AM
I would be sinning against God if I were to vote for Senator Clinton, after going through the long, long list of dirty financial scandals she has been involved over her lifetime.
Posted by: Bilbo983 | Mar 24, 2008 7:22:21 AM
In previous post "detrators", at bottom, should read "detractors".
Don't know if caused by bad typing or sub-conscious thoughts.
As in, "detrators" equating with "the traitors".
Posted by: Mike in Texas | Mar 24, 2008 3:50:03 AM
Here's what we have on Obama so far;
1. Lied to the people about the amount he accepted from Mr. Rezko - from $150,000.00 now he is saying $250,000.00
(100 thousand dollars difference).
2. Lied when he said he never heard Mr. Wright preached Racism and unpatriotism to our country then he retracted again and said he heard some.
3. He had his senior economic advisor relay info to a Canadian Ambassador that his rhetoric about NAFTA is nothing but a political ploy.
4. He attended 25 years in a church which preached Racism, bigotism and unpatriotism.
5. He is involved with an indicted businessman Mr. Rezko which the case is ongoing and his name will more likely surface anytime soon.
6. He was caught PLAGRIARIZING.
7. Another bombshell that should come out soon is about his intimate relationship with a man from Minnesota. This man was silenced by DNC, Mr. Axelrod and Mr. Obama himself. ABS should dig deep on this bombshell as well so America will know the facts.
8. Obama and his wife are known to be UNPATRIOTIC americans. Obama refused to patronize the national and pledge allegiance. His wife stated that for the first time she is proud of her country.
9. Obama continues to lie to the American people. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Posted by: James RR, PA, Independent | Mar 24, 2008 2:23:00 AM
Read an earlier post that quoted Richardson and others stating:
Obama ,once in a lifetime leader!
I can only respond to such lofty rhetoric with:
Not in my lifetime, Adams! I do not trust him or his backers with this country. President of a large "dreamy", out of sight commune? Cool! I would back him for that!
I personally have a Saviour in my life, and I am pragmatic enough not to need idealistic, vacuous verbiage such as "hope and change" as a guideline for governance.
I trust HRC to bring back sound stewardship!
Posted by: Mike in Texas | Mar 24, 2008 2:12:39 AM
Good to see some balance here, the media’s Hillary bashing is usually just a little too rampant. . .
Posted by: PacificGatePost | Mar 24, 2008 1:45:16 AM
I thought we had seperation of church and state. it really sounds like the chambers of the Vatican here"Hebemos Papas",habemos Papas" "Habemos Obama"
Should I stock up on bibles before the prices rocket? I would not want to be caught without one. I might be labeled racist and ognostic.
Habemos Papas!!! No,no beer, beer!
Posted by: ruthmatters | Mar 24, 2008 1:36:53 AM
It's laughable to call Obama transparent. He hid his Wright problem all year hoping no one woould discover he lacked the decency to walk away from a racist church for 20 years. And no, Obama cultists, the sermons weren't taken out of context, it's not a "normal" ucc church (it's an separtist one teaching black liberation theology), Fox news didn't make it all up (ABC broke the story), those of us who are offended aren't being racists we are standing up to hate, many of us are democrats so it's not all repubicans who are offended, and no, Obama doesn't have the judgment to lead after lacking courage for 20 years. He needs to have the courage now to stop defending Wright and that church. And the pitiful attempts to say "look Bill Clinton liked the crackpot minister too" because Clinton shook his hand once just makes him look even more like he has something to hide. He needs to man up and if he's going to stand by Wright, then take the consequences.
Posted by: Sarah | Mar 23, 2008 10:35:11 PM
Obama makes a fool of himself, he does not need Bill Clinton. Obama is no more patriot than Osama is.
After all, why would he interact with a lunetic racist Rev. Wright for 20 years allowing him to spew hate speech, especially when his kids were at the church?
What is Obama's involvement with Willaim C. Ayers, the noted and self-proclaimed Pentagon terrorist? Why is he not answering questions?
Do you really believe that he is going to get away with this? I'm afraid not. What I have read about this character makes the hair rise on my back:
I'm Independent and will vote Hillary. If Obama becomes the nominee, then McCain has a new voter -- me.
Posted by: Henry_Scranton | Mar 23, 2008 10:33:25 PM
Val, you are right,the clinton has nothing to lose,if they can't win then wound,they intend to come back as early as next season '12.
Posted by: Adams | Mar 23, 2008 10:32:34 PM
Who is Emil Jones and how is he related to Obama?
Posted by: ken | Mar 23, 2008 10:31:37 PM
the clintons knows for sure they are going nowhere this time '08,they are staying in the race just to make sure they wound Obama enough for him to lose in november,ofcourse they (clintons) have the next four years in mind also.
Posted by: val | Mar 23, 2008 10:26:57 PM
Harriet said: "The Clinton campaign's gutter politics have been manifest enough, for everyone with a clear and an initially unbiased eye to see." Harriet, I'm afraid your eye is anything but clear and unbiased. The idea that Obama is "above the fray" and that Hillary practices "gutter politics" is spin pure and simple. Both candidates, directly and through their surrogates, haven't hesitated to poke a stick in the eye of the other. Obama is very capable of fighting dirty -- he and his surrogates have attacked Hillary on every front possible, including that she is unfit for the Presidency because she was deceived by her husband in the Lewinsky affair. If fighting to win is "gutter politics," then Obama gives no quarter to Hillary in that department. Harriet, if your eye were truly unbiased, you'd see that clearly.
Posted by: shellray | Mar 23, 2008 10:15:03 PM
Jake,
thanks for the links to the Kathleen Parker columns. They are pretty good sometimes. One of Parker's accurate observations:
"It may not be Hillary's fault that her voice sounds like it was fashioned from metal, but it is her fault that she sounds like a car alarm when she's handed a microphone. It is her fault that she panders -- badly -- to her audiences.
Her performance last weekend in Selma revealed more than atonality. Like a warped bell, Hillary Clinton rings untrue."
Posted by: Barko | Mar 23, 2008 10:10:34 PM
ken, propaganda will not keep anybody awajke, it is your feedom and liberty to vote for a WBush 3rd term, that is OK, I am sure that Hillary will join you in that crossover to help her very close friend Mccain to win against Obama. God Bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Mar 23, 2008 10:01:03 PM
At this point, if the DNC doesn't work out with the MI and FL revotes. I think as a Democrat voter, I will either boycott the general election or even vote for the Republican party for the first time in 30 years of voting. I think Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi have been incompetent. Revote is the fairest way. How did those Democrats vote in the Republican primary anyway. There should never be cross over votes between Republican and Democrats. Why is Obama's camp so afraid of a REVOTE or NO VOTE!!!
Posted by: ken | Mar 23, 2008 9:55:05 PM
So Saddened, You are absolutely correct in your comment about Obama supporters "turning away, Clinton supporters.
I blog seldom, read much. I did not know such an element existed in the Democratic party, I was apparently very naive. Thought only far-right Repubs possessed such venom. "I have awakened and learned". Have not encountered such from "regular" Republicans on blogs.
I have been called a racist, bigot, ignorant, etc. I may be a bit "ignorant", that term is subjective. However, I am about as far from being a racist or bigot as one can get. I have a forehead scar (61) and a bullet hole in upper arm (62) to prove it.
What I have become is a person who will never vote for Obama under any circumstances. Not even on a joint ticket.
The only means I have to express my dismay regarding Obama supporters, the DNC, and the "Obamaesque media, other than with-holding donations from the DNC (which I have done), is to with-hold my vote in the GE.
If Obama is nominee, I will write in HRC, or if my repulsion continues to grow, vote for Mc Cain in hopes he would govern toward the center.
I could never allow myself to be involved or aligned with Obama supporters in any way. As a good song by Bobby Bland says "I'm too far gone to turn around"!
Posted by: M.C. | Mar 23, 2008 9:32:11 PM
DNC has succumbed to pressure from party elders like Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, Pelosi and others to steal this nomination for Obama. FL and MI should be seated somehow.
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 23, 2008 7:50:33 PM
Good post ...navarro!!!!
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 23, 2008 7:47:38 PM
Navarro: I agree with your post. The MSM is very late to the table on Obama. It could be owed to racial sensitivity, or it might be that when the video was exposed they could no longer shield him.
Posted by: JanetP | Mar 23, 2008 7:46:01 PM
Today I found a more convincing and telling example of finding unexpected friends.
Doug Kmiec, the well known REPUBLICAN Law Professor who served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and more recently as legal advisor to Mitt Romney's campaign,
ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA.
He writes:
"Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.
This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents."
Full text of this interesting endorsement at the SLATE site.
Posted by: Harriet | Mar 23, 2008 7:44:53 PM
BKMC: You have a very high opinion of Obama....nothing to disrespect that but Obama is not ready...he is lying blatantly on national television...he has sided with Wright which will be noticed and condemned by majority of Americans
We need a balanced leader like Hillary who is willing to fight and get things done.
Hillary-Edwards '08
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 23, 2008 7:43:08 PM
sosaddened, Obama is the only one who will defeat the suni terrorist groups AlQaeda in Irak, in the Phillipines, in Afganistan and in Pakistan. He is the only one who will get Iran and Noth korea to respect the rule of law and accept the will of the world.Obama is the real Commander in Chief. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Mar 23, 2008 7:39:44 PM
so saddened writes:
"the democratic nomination - which he would not have gotten if the american people had been told the truth before they voted in all the primaries and caucuses held so far."
-----
Remember that columnist Richard Cohen TRIED to bring up the "church" matter back in January, and was roundly denounced for it by others in the media. Many in the media made much of the size of John Edwards' house -- which he paid for without help from mobsters -- without MENTIONING the Obama mansion, the peculiarities of Mrs. Obama's employment compensation, and the like.
What the media did to Edwards -- who, with a Depression under way, is still the best bet for a Democratic Party, as opposed to "post-partisan", nominee -- is very similar to what was done to Howard Dean, who should be president right this minute.
The person in the media who's been most disappointing lately is Keith Olbermann, the formerly-fine commentator who now seems to be in a competition with the unctuous Dan Abrams as to which of them can divert the most air-time to giddy adulation.
Posted by: Navarro | Mar 23, 2008 7:39:37 PM
so sadened, Obama will need Hillary 's support to beat McCain. He is the front runner. He will ask Hillary to support him and beat McCain as a drum come November 2008. Obama will need also the support of honorable American like Richardson, Dodds, Kerry, Kennedy's etc.to make a contribution to the progress of their beloved America. Hillary has to drop out because she cannot win, she is not ellectable. America and the world are waiting for Obama to lead them. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Mar 23, 2008 7:34:31 PM
Obama and his family are afraid to attend church on Easter Sunday. What a couple of gutless phonies Michelle and Barack Obama are.
Posted by: geevill | Mar 23, 2008 7:25:40 PM
bkmc, you say hillary should drop out if she wants to unite the country behind obama. why doesn't he drop out to unite the country behind hillary?
and btw, hillary is a better person than i am - she'll support obama if he gets the nomination, because she supports the party. i, however, will not. and i firmly believes there are millions like me.
bye bye obama.
Posted by: so saddened | Mar 23, 2008 7:25:21 PM
I am really getting tired of the Obama campaign putting a spin on everything to make them look good and the press does nothing to correct the lies. Barack Obama, who stated publically that he was “outraged” at John Edwards from receiving monies from special interest groups and said to his followers that “I set the record straight that my campaign is funded by the ordinary people”, not special interest groups. According to the Washington Times, March 23, 2008, “Obama’s campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show. The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. No one is catching that he says something just to get people on his side and they are completely untrue.
Posted by: Anne | Mar 23, 2008 7:22:50 PM
bkmc, it's your guy obama who's not electable. i bet even he knows it.
just a clue - calling white people typical white people doesn't help get votes.
calling mr. g d america your spiritual advisor for 20 years doesn't help get votes.
lying about not taking money from lobbyists doesn't help get votes.
friendship with unrepentant terrorists william ayers and bernadette dohrn and having them hold fundraisers for you doesn't help get votes.
friendship with rezko and lying about the extent of your involvement doesn't help get votes.
lying about not knowing what was going on in your 20 church and saying stuff like i wasn't there the day they put the hamas terrorist manifesto into their church bulletin doesn't help get you votes.
and on and on and on.
i reluctantly admit that your guy may get the democratic nomination - which he would not have gotten if the american people had been told the truth before they voted in all the primaries and caucuses held so far.
but he will NOT win the general election. you know, i know, he knows. if he cared about anything other than himself, he'd quit. but he doesn't, so he won't.
Posted by: so saddened | Mar 23, 2008 7:20:39 PM
JanetP, since South Carolina Bill clinton is making lot of mistakes. He wants a 3rd term, but if he is not careful he will give to WBush that 3rd term. It is really time for Hillary to drop out if she wants to unite the party and the people behind Barak, there is no vetting and no scandals in the waiting as many Hillary lovers hope to see happening. Time is the essence here and the goal is to beat McCain, therefore, let us give to the winner the opportunity to prepare himself against the Republican party and their nominee who does not know the different between suni and shia, between AlQaeda a suni movement and Iran a shia republic.OBAMA08
Posted by: BKMC | Mar 23, 2008 7:17:50 PM
It is way too soon to talk about Hillary dropping out. Regrettably, Obama is just now beginning to go through the vetting process that should have happened more than a year ago. Who knows what else will be exposed?
But for the media's love affair with Obama the Jeremiah Wright scandal would have come to light long ago and voters could have made an intelligent decision about how to cast their vote.
Posted by: JanetP | Mar 23, 2008 7:09:21 PM
I think we hould put old people as President, they won't care for sex or money, everyone else is to questionable.
Posted by: David | Mar 23, 2008 6:03:23 PM
Quote: "Obama and his family were spending Easter on vacation and also were not attending services."
What? Some Christians these people are huh!
Hmm, I didn't attend services as did not hundreds of thousands today and I am a good Christian.
"If he goes to the Virgin Islands, Obama can thank the islanders for providing him with an 84-point margin of victory over Hillary Clinton in the territory's Feb. 9th caucuses."
Posted by: annonymouse | Mar 23, 2008 6:02:53 PM
Geevil posted:
"Obama and his family were spending Easter on vacation and also were not attending services."
What? Some Christians these people are huh!
He should have gone to visit his grandmother in Hawaii if he wanted some beach time. No reports of him visiting her for a year or two. She is his only living white relative.
Posted by: marie | Mar 23, 2008 6:01:12 PM
Sandy you are right. When Bill Clinton was in the white house he had the opportunity to demonstrate what true patriotism meant. Instead, he passed NAFTA and corrupted the oval office with lewd and licentious conduct. With patriots like him, who needs foes.
Posted by: Tara | Mar 23, 2008 5:59:18 PM
"Obama and his family were spending Easter on vacation and also were not attending services."
What? Some Christians these people are huh!
Posted by: geevill | Mar 23, 2008 5:54:22 PM
Vanessa
I am for HRC, but Obama is lucky to have you.
Posted by: David | Mar 23, 2008 5:52:23 PM
They keep talking about Rezko and Obama. Obama is charged with nothing in the Rezko affair, while the Clintons will be tried for fraud in California apparently in April. LOL. What a choice.
Posted by: anonnymouse | Mar 23, 2008 5:51:30 PM
B o has lost his momentum.
The only thing he has left is his
speechwriter.
Posted by: questioner | Mar 23, 2008 5:48:30 PM
lance, your 6 point analysis is right on target. btw, re #6, i'm in the voter for mccain part of the millions of hillary supporters. re pelosi - so right! she has the nerve to call herself neutral while only the willfully blind can't see right through her hatred of hillary and support for obama. i think she is neutral the same way katherine harris was (remember the florida secretary of state who has a similar waxy-faced look and did similarly disgusting things?)
Posted by: so saddened | Mar 23, 2008 5:39:39 PM
Obama is the worst form of the old politics.
Posted by: Mountain Laurel | Mar 23, 2008 5:38:09 PM
No one is claiming politicians are clean, but when Obama comes preaching that he's clean and will bring change to Washington is what scares me. I only have to look at Rezko and others that i am sure will come out soon, lets not forget Obama was unknown till recently and the media is making sure he is well known just like they have done their jobs with Clinton, but She's still here and running strong. Lets see if we can still say the same for Obama comes next year.
Posted by: Persio | Mar 23, 2008 5:18:12 PM
Vanessa
McCain has his own problems with money, he was censored by the senate ck it out.
Posted by: David | Mar 23, 2008 5:16:31 PM
Let's be clear on this endorsement thingy. Bill Richardson did not endorse Obama. He was literally groveling and licking his shoes. Read his speech.
Posted by: johnsilverstone | Mar 23, 2008 3:46:05 PM
How can Obama correct the things that are wrong with our country when he can't correct the things that are wrong in one church in Chicago?
His biggest sin is that he didn't TRY. He just sat there Sunday after Sunday listening to his mentor blaspheme an entire race of people as well as his own government.
By what reckoning do we determine that he will speak out for the U.S. under similar circumstances?
Posted by: JanetP | Mar 23, 2008 3:33:38 PM
Both democratic candidates have too much old baggage and no idea of the complexities of this world. Both employ character assignation and guilt by association ignoring, all the while, failing to provide some meat that back up their shallow assertions. If you want to vote for a puffball, then take your pick. Otherwise, ...
Vote Nader!
Posted by: Turku Wren | Mar 23, 2008 3:33:01 PM
I am sick and tired of people accusing Barack Obama of stealing MI and FL votes. It was my own stupid MI state government that decided to gamble and lost. Get over it. We have!
Posted by: Ann | Mar 23, 2008 3:28:59 PM
If Sen McCain is sitting pretty thinking that he will have it easy against Sen Obama in about six months' time - then he does NOT have what it takes to be our leader and a commander_in-chief. [Think of Bill Clinton's smug cockiness six months ago. And now? It's Hail-Mary desperation time.]
Posted by: chokora fukara | Mar 23, 2008 3:15:00 PM
It's over LOL BUT Penn and Wolfson don't want that BIG paycheck to go away any sooner than it will so they keep telling HIllary what she wants to hear....and since she stays away from the internet her information comes via those 2. So keep on sending money to the Clinton machine I am sure those 2 appreciate it. As for what happens to what is left of Clintons reputation when this is over? Maybe then someone who cares will have the decency to tell her.
The math just is not there for her and the Super Delegates are not going to go against the popular vote which she can no longer obtain.
With her papers coming out from her time in the WH and the facts differing greatly regarding her experience, her stand on NAFTA not standing up to the light of day and now her tax returns for the last 8 years are due in a couple of weeks...and trust me those won't be pretty...there was a reason she waited as long as she could to make those public.....it ain't happening but with the tempers both Clintons have, and any one who goes against them is now a judus, no one wants to tell her..and those who should be responsible? Penn and Wolfson are making toooooo much money to pull the chain and stop the train wreck.
Posted by: Brian | Mar 23, 2008 3:14:00 PM
ANYONE backed by the National Review would be ashamed ROTFLMAO Hope that works for Hillary!
The backstabbing done by the Clintons is WELL documented and this week alone she stabbed her supporters in the back by lying to them about her experience (which has been shown to be lies such as the "sniper fire" which is proven a lie by video) and NAFTA. They deserve the call to come look at what's at the National Review LOL again to those who apparently like being lied to? Good luck with this one!
Posted by: Sam | Mar 23, 2008 3:12:40 PM
NinaK: What did Obama mean by "typical white woman?"
Posted by: That'snotwhatImeant | Mar 23, 2008 3:09:40 PM
NinaK: how about $10 an hour for making pro-Nader comments while you are at it?
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 23, 2008 3:05:48 PM
Of course, Bill Clinton was deliberately making a distinction: Hillary and McCain are patriotic; by excluding Senator Obama he is clearly saying what he (Bill) wants to put out there, Obama is not. It is laughable how the Clintons consistently make these types "veiled" comments and ALWAYS say they are misinterpreted. I have determined the Clintons think Americans are totally dumb and cannot grasp the true meaning of their trash-and-burn tactics. The Clintons brought America multiple scandals and shame, we were the laughing stock of the world! I am sick and tired of the Clintons; America must get rid of the "Clintonism politics" of the last century and move forward with a NEW, MODERN, UP-TO-DATE President with whom we can actually bring and do better things for our country and the world.
Posted by: NinaK | Mar 23, 2008 3:03:41 PM
steal? CNN, MSNBC and Obama supporters are using this word a lot?
Obama how does it feel to steal the nomination "without" the votes of 4 million and FL, MI voters?
jackt51:
"Should Hillabeans somehow steal the election"
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 23, 2008 3:02:12 PM
Quit whining about FL & MI... They caused their own mess. If Florida knew how to cast a ballot (In 2000) we probably would not be spending BILLIONS in Iraq right now. We would also have a better energy policy and would not need to import all that Oil. FL & MI knew they were breaking the rules, hopefully they can get it right in the Fall. Obama 2008!!!
Posted by: pt | Mar 23, 2008 3:01:43 PM
I am a Vet and a Clinton supporter and I will not vote for obama. I will stay home and not vote or vote for Mc Cain.
Posted by: PAUL | Mar 23, 2008 2:36:07 PM
I guess we could both be more sensitive to one another.
Posted by: D | Mar 23, 2008 2:34:38 PM
"Obama says he is a constitutional law expert, but he wants to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan."
No, the democratic party wants to disenfranchise the voters in Florida and Michigan. They are the ones who set the rules and the candidates went along with them. Clinton did not after agreeing to the rules. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: annonymouse | Mar 23, 2008 2:34:19 PM
Matt, time to grow up. Both the Chicago Tribune (the conservative newspaper) and the Chicago Sun-Times (the so called "liberal" paper) devoted two years to investigating Senator Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko; both came up with nada, zip, zero, nothing. In fact, just about a month ago, Obama sat down with the reporters and editorial boards of both papers, at different times, and further provided them with anything and everything they ever wanted. Guess what? Both papers gave him a clean bill of health and the conservative Tribune went one step further, they re-endorsed him for President.
Posted by: YankeeClipper | Mar 23, 2008 2:33:31 PM
D says: "everyday, I read on these post, if we do not agree with your (Obama) viewpoint, that we must be uneducated." I've been watching these posts and have rarely seen that. Yet few hesitate to call me "stupid" or "ignorant" for being an Obama supporter.
Posted by: malthusian77 | Mar 23, 2008 2:32:45 PM
Anonymouse - You think that uneducated people are uneducated because they dont want to get an education? Do you see the irony in your post? Seriously all the education you got is for nothing if you cant respect any uneducated person
Hillary-Edwards '08
Anonymouse said:
"I worked my way through college without an ounce of help from the government or anyone else. Don't give me that "coudn't afford" it stuff. Didn't want to go to school is more like it. "
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 23, 2008 2:32:33 PM
Black, female, married, college educated, high wage earner, Hillary voter. Happy Easter.
Posted by: Sophia | Mar 23, 2008 2:29:26 PM
Dogsoldier.
Our side?
Posted by: Thinking | Mar 23, 2008 2:26:35 PM
Accepting the truth is often very, very difficult especially when one has made considerable emotional investment on a lie.
Posted by: mekazee | Mar 23, 2008 2:26:32 PM
everyday, I read on these post, if we do not agree with your (Obama) viewpoint, that we must be uneducated. I really don't put much into polls, you can find a poll out there to please each side.
Posted by: D | Mar 23, 2008 2:26:31 PM
Post a comment