Another low blow from the Clinton playbook. They wanted this race to get ugly because they thrive in it. If she's elected all of her energy in the White House will be spent fighting the right wingers and nothing will get done.

I thought it was a Republican Party thing - this notion that a candidate had to have paid his or her dues, waited in line, before getting a shot at moving on to the next level.

Maybe its something that Clinton picked up from her early years with Goldwater.

But then the flip side of this is to ask whether going from First Lady to U.S. Senate to rapid run for the presidency isn't also leapfrogging.

Not that leapfrogging is a terrible thing. I suppose Lincoln also could be seen as a leapfrogger.

I'm just Another Republican... voting for Barack Obama. Leapfrog??? The sooner, the better!

you go hillary! obama is a flim-flam man who thinks good looks and great speeches will make him president. this country is in dire need of a leader - and that leader is hillary clinton.

Bradley - lying equals leadership abilities? Not sure I'm buying that one.

Leapfrogging? I think I last heard that term in elementary school.

Last time I checked Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

- be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
- be at least thirty-five years old
have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

In addition, what an ageist comment to infer that you aren't qualified unless you have garnered a certain amount of experience (i.e. time in).

As a democrat, I'm disappointed. This just confirms to me that if she is the nominee I will have to vote for someone else or not vote.

Talk about ENTITLEMENT! What is the Democratic Party? A MONARCHY? WOW....

Jennifer -- I have decided that if "Billary" (i.e., Bill + Hillary) gets elected, I would rather vote for either the devil or my dog. Since my dog isn't too interested in running, I'll have to vote for dear Mitt R. I guess Mitt will have Billary to thank for my vote!

The Office Parrot

There she goes again, accusing someone else of doing exactly what she herself has done, and continues to do.
The windbag of 35 yrs of experience is a much bigger leapfrog jump. And then the ride on her husbands coattails, what a role model she has become.

I simply do not understand why so many old women like her. Are they really like her and just act differently in public? I mean, watching the debates, I agree she looks more informed. On that alone, I think she could have won. But the fact that she is just willing to trash a potential great future president regardless of if this is his time is just mind-blowing. I just don't understand how do pro-Hillary supporters justify this?

this is all a press pushed story. Yeah, it was a swipe, so what? Why report on it? ASk her about it directly and get a comment. Why put race into it at all with the mention of Obama's racial status in the senate? No mention of what this " most powerful committee" in effect stating that this committee and this man supporting her have control over out daily lives. Let's hear it for the democratic process!

Josh! The reporter turned this story into one about race. and hills referred to herself as the senator from Punjab. Not sure how that could be construed as a racist remark. It is insulting. Claiming domain through the head of a committee that has the most power over our daily lives, shows that she is seekign power for the sake of power.

Right, Hillary, we wouldn't want anyone stepping of line and not waiting their turn like, oh, let's see, Bill Clinton in 1992, or maybe JFK in 1960, now would we?

Maybe we'll all catch a break and she'll leapfrog herself right out of the race...

We can only hope...

Now just HOW is Hilliary qualified as an executive, outside of her attachment to Bill? Talk about leapfrogging!!! Shut up Hilliary, Obama's got more public office experience than you. Unless you think that Eleanor Roosevelt being married to FDR for his first 13 years, made her more qualified than Truman to be chief exectutive after WWII. See how worthless her claim of "experience" is???? People come on, THINK!!!

I listened to her whole speech. Like all of her "special group" performances (e.g., Compton), the speech is composed of audience-directed promise after promise. With no indication of where the money is going to come from. Typical Dem performance, and typical for her, too.

Are you guys all paid Obama supporters? - Hillary is tough and will use every opportunity to bring down the opponent as she should. How else do you propose one should run a competitive campaign that has been hijacked by Obama-loving media?
Wake up people - It is our future that depends on it. Playing nice does not get it done.
Vote HillBilly '08.

If Obama is a leapfrogger, then Hillary got to where she is today by sleeping with a governor, then a president. That's not leapfrogging, that's gold-digging.

Hillary is tough and will use every opportunity to bring down the opponent as she should. How else do you propose one should run a competitive campaign that has been hijacked by Obama-loving media?
Wake up people - It is our future that depends on it. Playing nice does not get it done.

In your eyes she is tough. In my eyes she is weak. If she was tough, she wouldn't have broken down over a VERY simple question. Niether she, her campaign, nor her husband would have complained she was being ganged up on. If your tough, you take the heat. You sure in hell don't run around sending out press releases that you are being ganged up on, if you are indeed a tough woman. She also wouldn't be hiding behind Bill's balls if she were tough. He's out front and she is in the background. Sure, she is one tough mama that Hillary.

The only reason she can get away with it is she knows how to manipulate matters to her benefit. Both of the Clinton's know how to manipulate for their own gain. They've already done so in the past, they are doing it now and getting away with it.....

Of course she can get away with it because if anyone strikes back, well she just shrinks into the role of a poor defenseless woman and certain groups rally to her cause. Thereby proving themselves to the be the good little lab rats the Clinton's predicted they would be.

I don't know why I supported her in the beginning. If I could take back the votes I gave Bill in 1992 and 1996, I sure would. They are shameless, offensive and not worthy of being associated with the Democratic party.

I, myself, am seriously questioning my own involvement and identification with the party given recent events.......The days of voting for the betterment of others against my own self interest are fast coming to an end for me. I suspect there are others of the same position that might be feeling the same.

And the leapfrogger comment, please. Why else did she run from New York instead of Arkansas? Could it be because she knew she couldn't leap frog from Arkansas but she could from New York? Just more of the same bile as usual....

I just watched the DVD "Primary Colors" (starred John Travolta) and got good education on how the Clinton political machine works. The Clintons do not like to lose and they will do anything at any cost to win.

Folks- lets keep it real

1. Hillary, or any candidate showing feelings is not weakness. For one thing-she didn't "break down" (see the tape if you have such short memories)
2) those of you who dislike her will find fault with her either way- if she doesn't show feeling, she's a robot; if she does- she's a crybaby

To cut to the chase- no matter how you color it, (no pun intended)-Obama is a novice senator who is a good orator
(using prepared stump speeches)- but not a great debator. His positions are lifted almost whole cloth from Hillary's- so, as far as I can see- there is nothing original he adds to the campaign aside from vague promises of changes and 'hope". He uses the word 'we' when it comes to "change"- but the only "we there is in the process is whether "we' vote for him-after that HE gets to wield the executive power of the presidency--and I don't think he is ready for it.

You have minimized Hillary's experience- but her experience both in the white house was not that of a passive first lady and her senate experience since has shown her to be quite capable of working with both parties- not just "fighting" right wingers.

Please- those of you entranced with obamas smile, pretty family photos and semi-charismatic presentation of vaguities- look at what he has done to date and ask the media to ask questions that will better define him. He wants to remain a tabula rasa, a blank slate- the better to appeal to people who can then, simply, project their fantasies into him such as 'he will unify us, he will make the world feel better about us, there will be a different world once he is in office and, for the whites "we will no longer be thought of as racist and there will be redemption for the past history of black enslavement. Don't let thim continue with this crap unquestioned- lets ask him (and ask the media to ask him) what he plans to do, how he plans to do it, how hands on will he be? (he's said he plans to be a kind of philosopher king/preacher and leave the trench fighting to others"- but nobody calls him on statements like this- and WHY should he be chosen as the implementer of chage over anyone else, given his philosophical propensities and lack of experience?

Don't we deserve a president who is not trying to simply be, as he said, a "rider" on the "wave of change" that this country desires. Some politicians ride on the coattails of others- but Obama is trying to parlay the inital mass hysteria in regard to a likeable black candidate into a pinnacle of personal power. That, to me, is manipulative and the definition of hubris.

p.s. those of you who condemn clintonian politics- please keep in mind that his "great unifier" approach (in the beginning of his campaign) was planned by a political team composed largely of people who helped Clinton in his campaigns. Please- for the sake of our country- don't confuse inexperience with "purity of intentions"- Obama is as political as any of them-he wants power- the question is: what will he do with it if he gets it- ??

A leapfrogger is exactly what I'm looking for in a candidate for President. It means he hasn't had the time to become part of the Washington machine and sell his soul to the special interests - as Hillary has. It means that he has a much better chance of remaining true to his convictions and working for the good of the average American (not the average corporation, industry trade group, lobbyist, etc.). Obama is my choice BECAUSE he's a leapfrogger.

To Bill (and others of similar convictions)

you equate leapfrogging with purity of intentions?

take a course in logic, please.

Obama is not a saint (altho some of his followers deify him, already).

The system will not dissolve if Obama becomes president/ He will have to work and accomodate to various interest groups, right wingers, etc., the same as any President

Please define the 'average american, for me, please. The very word average denotes a statistical computation, not a real person. If you think he will be more "true" to your beliefs (whatever they are), then I would really like to know what YOURS are. Maybe, then, the rest of us MIGHT be able to get a handle on what Obama really believes in----because he sure aint telling (so far) and I think your belief in him is based, as benjamin said, on fantasied projections.

The more obama defines himself, the less he will be able to be "all things for all people". It's happening already in South Carrolina where he (and the African Americans who vote for him mainly because of their hunger to elect a black they think whites might accept because of his professed role as the "great unifier") are defining him as a black candidate,identified with traditional black interests.

By the way, before you blame this racial divide on the Clintons for having the audacity to challenge Obamas "historic"run for the presidency, let me remind you of the Media's constant polarizing of this "race" (no pun intended) and the fact that Obamas is appealing to black voters to turn out for him because (to them) he exemplifies (I think falsely) Martin Luther's " I have a dream". This is not racial politics, this is not manipulative--"give me a break!) Martin Luther king dreamed of a nation that did not divide along racial lines-not one where a black candidate (like obama) used race to win a State primary.

We are a country of different races and, while we should all vote for the best, more experienced candidate irrspective of race, this, unfortunately is not always the case. People do take race into consideration and sometimes, whether they are black or white, they give precedence to this factor. To prefer a candidate who shares your characteristics, even if that characteristic is only skin color is a racial preference- but it is not of itself racist unless you demean the other candidate for not sharing the melanin density of your skin.

. Bill Clinton has already said (although this statement gets little press) he would support a black candidate if one were chosen- I have yet to hear this from Obama .

p.s. For those of you who emphasize his 'being against the War "from the start- let me only say that it is a far cry from making self-serving statements as a STATE legislator to casting votes that count as a Senator. Since Obama has been elected Senator (in a race, by the way, that was a shoo-in for him)-his voting record on the war has not be consistent with his previous anti-war rhetoric.

All of this just goes to show that when you are in a position of real power- rhetoric gives way to a more pragmatic approach-and obama will no exception to this axiom- ahould he ever be elected.

Correction:

"Bill Clinton has already said (although this statement gets little press) he would support a black candidate if one were chosen- I have yet to hear this from Obama :should be changed to:

Bill Clinton has already said (although this statement gets little press) he would support a black candidate if one were chosen- I have YET TO HEAR A SIMILAR STATEMENT in regard to a white candidate from Obama . .

CORRECTION: The term should be "roll dem bones"- not Toll dem bones.

(Ask Not for whom the Bell Tolls, America, if obama wins thsi election-it tolls for thee!)