Clinton aides set bar high for Obama

The HRC camp is absolutely shameless. How dare Wolfson say this is a "relatively mild primary campaign" when HRC has single handedly destroyed any perception of unity in the Democratic ranks by fanning the flames of bad rhetoric towards Obama. She has dragged this race into 50 feet of mud and something her surrogates think she is still positive and Democrats will sing kum-bay-yah after she drops out.

Why can't Bill and Hill keep their "hard earned money" and let someone represent us to bring about a better government for all, not just the rich and greedy.

Calling Clinton's camp destructive and dragged into the mud is embarrassing and naive. The woman is a candidate for President of the United States. She would like to win. She is doing nothing more and nothing less than what Obama or McCain are doing. It's just that some people appear to be too sexist to allow a woman to fight for a goal...

I didn't think it was possible but Obama makes Clinton look like a saint. I actually hope she wins so I can vote for her.

Obama is would be a worse president than Jimmy Carter and that takes some doing. Anyone who lived through the Carter years knows he was the worst president of the 20th century, maybe of all time.

Obama is unelectable though. If I can't vote for Clinton, I'll just pick McCain. Only children and the weak minded are fooled by Obama's lies.

It's funny you say that when more Democrats claim to vote McCain if Obama leads Dems then Hillary. Last I read, 33% of Hillary backers will go towards McCain versus 25% of Obama backers. So who's singing kumbayyah? Yeah.

We got Texas Baby! The biggest of them all.

Ummm, Luis, are you old enough to have paid attention to any other election to realize that the way HRC has been described in this race has been absolutely unprecedented and uncalled for. Its because she has been this comfortable target for every human being, that is detestabled and a great indicator of character. Give me a break, you are a true Democrat indeed, with our history of divisiveness and holier than thou righteousness yet with the appearance of open-mindedness.

The democrats could elect a dead donkey as their general election candidate and still be ahead in PA by 5%. Sadly they do not have a dead donkey.

As each day passes, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to understand why anyone, particularly PA residents, would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Her negativity, aversion to the truth, and pitt bull tactics are so repulsive. Is this really what people want in our next President? Haven't we had enough of this garbage from the Bush administration?

Let's go, Pennsylvania!! Hand Hillary and her merry band of idiots a huge loss here next week. Think. Research. Listen. Vote.

Wolfson is confusing the general election with this primary. How people vote in the primary is not an indication of how they will vote in November.

Despite Wolfson's comment, it's till a delegate race. Hillary needs to win by huge numbers, by 60/40% to even be viable in this election. She needs to do that in every state, which isn't likely.

Wofson is just spinning, and as usual, stuff coming from the Clinton camp is quite disconnected from reality.

I think Obama and his supporter are absolutely shameless. He did something wrong, but they attack Hillary! Do you think it is reasonable!
Remember, when you do something wrong, you are responsible for it! grow up! Babies.

And what is different with Obama?

She cannot win. She can only tear our nominee (Obama will be: do the math) down in hopes that she can come back four years from now. But the party and the voters, I hope, will never forgive the Clintons for being spoilers. However, despite all her efforts to the contrary to give Republicans ammunition and to wound him and to prevent him from having time to recover , I do think Obama will win the general election. Then all those political hacks who are supporting Hillary will have lost their career in politics. It's one thing to fight for the candidate who employs you, but it is quite another to keep fighting when that person cannot win, to fight only in the hopes of damaging the general party's prospects. If the roles had been reversed, Billary and her minions would long since have drummed Barack Obama out of the race, arguing that the loser has to know when to quit for the good of the party.

I love to see the Democrats self destruct.
John McCain is more American than both of these idiots.

Hillaryand her campaign staff are absolutely shameless and are destroyiung any unity that has existed. With lies and demagogry, whitewater, destroying the whitehouse with Bill in tow, let them stsnd up adn admit their destruction of democracy.

The quick pounce on Obama's comments says more about the desperation of his
opponents than about the comments themselves. There is nothing in Obama's words that should insult anyone; it is natural for those who are suffering hard times to blame other institutions (like religion or the government) or other people (like Reverend Wright and his brand of "religion") or to take up a gun and shoot a squirrel (easier than shooting a duck, harder than shooting a lawyer) than to look to themselves for answers. I hope Obama stands by his words.

you're so concerned about the democratic ticket splitting, why won't obama simply quit? his staying in the race is bad for the party, and bad for the country.

The HRC camp is absolutely shameless. How dare Wolfson say this is a "relatively mild primary campaign" when HRC has single handedly destroyed any perception of unity in the Democratic ranks by fanning the flames of bad rhetoric towards Obama. She has dragged this race into 50 feet of mud and something her surrogates think she is still positive and Democrats will sing kum-bay-yah after she drops out.

Where do all of you Clinton-Haters come from? Have you forgotten the prosperity that we experienced under the last Clinton campaign. Obama supporters are playing a guessing game that our country cannot afford. It will take two terms of Hillary to get us out from under all of the debt from the Bush administration's lies. That is the real story. Obama is nice but lacks the experience of Hillary. Wake up Luis!

The HRC camp is absolutely shameless. How dare Wolfson say this is a "relatively mild primary campaign" when HRC has single handedly destroyed any perception of unity in the Democratic ranks by fanning the flames of bad rhetoric towards Obama. She has dragged this race into 50 feet of mud and something her surrogates think she is still positive and Democrats will sing kum-bay-yah after she drops out.

Where do all of you Clinton-Haters come from? Have you forgotten the prosperity that we experienced under the last Clinton campaign. Obama supporters are playing a guessing game that our country cannot afford. It will take two terms of Hillary to get us out from under all of the debt from the Bush administration's lies. That is the real story. Obama is nice but lacks the experience of Hillary. Wake up Luis!

Luis: Get a grip. Obama has conducted a far more divisive campaign than has Hillary, and it is about time that the media pays attention too his elitist, patronizing attitudes. HRC is our only hope!

You know the Republicas are scared to face Obama that's why they are pilling it on to help hillary Steal this election from Obama. I'm not offended by his "bitter " remarks. He tells you the truth you don't always want to hear. Not a bunch of promises no one ever keeps. Come on people don't let the same old politics take this from us.

Hillary Clinton - the hunter and the hunted. (what do you think of my new campaign slogan?)

Honestly, Adam Vinatieri would never have scored a point with them moving the goal posts so often and without regard for anything said previously. A 20 point lead, name recognition, a gov. in your pocket, all the local pols working for you and somehow the other guy's commercials are going to ebat you.

Give me a break.

Both candidates have not focused on the issues. What people need to realize is that there are fair criticisms and unfair criticisms. Taking statements out of context, twisting their meaning, and basically playing politics with non-issues are all unfair. And these are the things Clinton has done. Seriously, I think both Clinton and Obama have pretty good policy stances, but Obama is playing fair and honest, but is getting punished for it. He's actually being criticized for telling people what they want to hear, and for telling people what they don't want to hear, or aren't used to hearing so bluntly and frankly.

Thank heavens we have a candidate who is in touch with the people, rubbing elbows with the steelworkers, and a staunch supporter of gun rights and religious expression--"Annie Oakley" Clinton. But I wonder what happened to her professed stand regarding guns several times in the past to "get guns off the streets" and "zero tolerance for weapons?" Oh, yea, that was before. Now she's a prez candidate and can make up the past any way she wants. Four years from now she'll be talking about the flak jacket she had to wear going to a fundraising dinner in Philly.

Oh, Hillary, by the way Rocky LOST!

Cute! I it's part of the whole "perception management" game those people play, I heard. You know: we all are such gullible little peons, so easy to be told what to think. LOL. I understand that, supposedly, the Clintons pollster team is one of the best (Hillary doesn't say or do anything without consulting with them.) I don't know. Shouldn't Hillary Clinton let the management of the Obama's campaign to the care of the Obama campaign and focus her energy on her own campaign instead---with her chief strategist quitting over the Colombia flap and all?

And just as there's fair and unfair criticism, there's fair and unfair media coverage. It seems many people expect fair media coverage to mean that the media spends equal time giving favorable and unfavorable coverage to candidates. But fair is covering legit issues with the candidates... and seeing as how the media had nothing on Obama except the weak "experience" issue, they had to push idiotic non-issues to appease those who don't know what fair is. Clinton should be getting more negative coverage because there is much more legit negatives to cover. Yeah... keep calling the campaign "civil". But it's not. Clinton loses if it ever becomes civil.

Oh give Hillary a break. This is one of the worst cases of anti woman sentiment in living memory. Obama is untested,arrogant,condecending eletist and seems pretty sneaky to me. I am afraid in the rush for America to feel better about itself it is doing the flocking to a celiberty thing agina. he is no jack Kennedy ..the integrity is very thin anthe slickness and smoothness way outranks Slick willie who does not seem very slick in comparison..I just cannot figure out why the media does nt get this guy's real number..is it really as antiwoman as that?Hilary is a hardworking ,dedicated woman who has a track record less of ambition and more as truly committed to puposes other than herself. I wish people would wake up now before the big hangover when you realize what thin soup Obamamania is!

While Hillary Clinton is a dirty campaigner, we all knew that. What is irresponsible and demeaning to Americans is the MEDIA. Yes, the media is dancing the tune Clinton and her campaigners and surrogates are playing. The media has agreed to make a big issue out of nothing. How about REAL issues? How about the economy, unemployment, war, etc. etc.? The MEDIA is helping Hillary make the voters fixate on irrelevant stupid things. Concentrate on the issues, otherwise YOU, PEOPLE OF THE MEDIA, are going to be really bitter when McCain becomes president and your jobs become more difficult. How about reporting on the freedom of the press according to McCain?

Cute! It’s part of the whole "perception management" game those people play, I heard. You know: we all are such gullible little peons, so easy to be told what to think. LOL... I understand that, supposedly, the Clintons pollster team is one of the best there is, or so they say (Hillary Clinton doesn't say or do anything without consulting with them.) I don't know. Shouldn't senator Clinton let the management of senator Obama's campaign to the care of the Obama campaign and focus her energy on her own campaign instead---with her chief strategist quitting over the Colombia flap and all?

"Clinton aides set bar high for Obama", while setting it low for Hillary. So low in fact, that no one can remember another Democratic primary campaign quite so negative about another Democratic candidate.

It's sad thst the HRC Camp think that the primary is just a childish bashing game of fun and fantasy. With $109 million earned in just 7 years, I really wonder whether she actually understand the pains the average Americans are going through. For a person who neglects settling her campaign bills and pays little attention in keeping up the premium health insurance payments of her own campaign staff, besides neglecting to recall her actual experience in Bosnia, how can she ever be trusted to remember what she promises during rhis campaign. She reminds me of those ambitious and workaholic mothers who neglect the welfare of their children and spouses for the sake of pursuing their obsessive need to achieve their self-importance. I doubt that she really even cares whether her husband andr her daughter make fools of themselves during their campaigning for her.

Wolfson is right! It seems that folks are forgetting the seriously down and dirty primary campaigns of the past. It is amazing how some folks are willing to over -look the name calling and ridiculing of Hillary Clinton by Obama. Saying that she is destroying the unity within the Democaratic ranks is simply and absolutely untrue. Misogyny is alive and still active. The kum-bay-yah will come when Hillary
Clinton overtakes Obama, as she will, and he drops out. We need someone who knows what they are doing.......and that's Hillary. She has withstood anything and everything thrown at her. She will be nothing short of a great President of The United States.

Scripted by Karl Rove. Obama won "Red States" because Republican strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama.

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy, and the Obama campaign launched its own "Be a Democrat For a Day" campaign in 2007.(An official video distributed in in Florida, Nevada and Vermont explains how this legal form of vote stacking is accomplished .) Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. The tactic, called crossover voting, appears to be part of a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination. Even with the full compliment of election-scamming tools available to him - phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc.- Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter. Several influential Republicans admit as much in a February 11th story for Politico.

If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably. Largely unvetted by the media, the senator carries considerable baggage from his stint as a state legislator, particularly his 17-year relationship with Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko. So far, the mainstream press has paid lip service to the particulars of Obama's past and instead portrays him as a fresh new face in American politics. The author of the Time article, for instance, offered the following explanation to account for the bizarre love affair G.O.P. voters say they're having with an African American senator on the other side of the aisle. "It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 'there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.'"

Is he kidding? The conservative publication National Journal claims Obama's voting record is the most liberal in Washington, even moreso than Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Not everyone agrees with that assessment by a long shot, but it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern Jay Newton-Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama.
http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winte...

Hey AGS...why should he quit? He is winning!?!

I'm confused.

So... let's look at what's being argued here. rmcnicoll is claiming Obama is supported by Republicans in primaries, who are looking to do what they think is best for their own candidate? Therefore Obama is a bad choice because Republicans have some sort of plan? Please. Beside, check out Limbaugh and the 1000's of his supporters that registered democrat to vote for Clinton in Texas and other states.

We've got a complaint that Obama is "name-calling" on Clinton by saying she's hurting the Democratic unity? Obama is the one who said she's welcome to run for as long as she wants, and he is correct when he criticizes her for playing dirty politics. Look at how she takes individual statements out of context to apply her own meaning. Look how she lets her associates speak divisively, while she stands by. Look at how she took opportunities to change the focus and message of these elections from something that would be good for America, to instead ridiculing Obama for political gain. Instead of starting a dialog on the issues, including the long-time suppressed issues that Obama raises such as on race and poverty, Clinton focuses on the individual words instead of the message to twist it for political gain.

We've got people claiming Obama just tells people what they want to hear, yet they lash out when he addresses the tough issues and speaks frankly about the things we all know are true, but are too afraid to say it because it's taboo.

We've got people who claim they don't know what Obama stands for, yet when he goes into the nuances of specific policies, they apparently stop listening. While he remains consistent and open in his messages, Clinton continues posturing for whatever the popular message of the day is, whether it be showing emotion, pretending to be under sniper fire, or pretending to be a small-town, watering-hole swimming, life-touched-by-religion gun lover.

And yet while they seek to call Obama elitist and out of touch, he's actually the only candidate to make his own path from humble beginnings, including being raised by a single mother, on food stamps, going through college on scholarship and loans, living in marriage for 13 years in a 3-bedroom Chicago condo without a garage, and spending his entire life working with people to make low-income communities better... And yet people cannot separate fact from fiction, rhetoric from reality, the Clinton-painted picture from the actual brutally honest, open, genuine, intelligent, and compassionate Obama.

This is insane. People cry for something new. Obama forgoes the old tried-and-true politically-winning scripted messages, and goes out on a limb to say what he believes and to bring a new message of open, honest and clear politics, and yet some people seem determined to make it so honest politicians cannot exist. And then they wonder why all our elected politicians seem dishonest at least to some extent...

Come on people!

From a conservative, on the Democratic condition;

Okay folks, I’m going to be hitting some hard and fast truths here, there will be no sugar coating, and I’m gonna move kind of quick, so try and keep up.

We are fast approaching an election in which (theoretically) all one has to do to win is not be a republican, and yet, it looks like you guys are going to blow it again.

Let me splain;

John McCain has just been crowned the least lousy candidate from a stable of non-starters, and you guys should be jumping up and down in the thought that he is the competition. We’re talking John McCain here, a guy who makes Howard Dean look calm and stable, but guess what? At least he has the nomination sowed up.

That means that every day from now till November all he has to do is keep quiet, act presidential, and sharpen his knives. Meanwhile, your candidates are going to be busy bashing each other over the heads every day, and if the nastiness from the run-up of the last few states sets the tone, then whoever ultimately wins will come out of the fight looking shabby, and mean-spirited and anything but presidential.

Pick somebody!!!!

Okay, now here’s the part where I admit that I’m somewhat prejudiced in this matter.

Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. Say it with me, ‘Republicans hate Hillary Clinton.’ They just do. They may not like McCain all that much, but they would vote for Satan just to keep that lady from office. That means that they will come out in droves on election-day in order to dis-elect her if she is the Dem nominee.

It’s been 10 years, but the Clintons still don’t get it. The president of the United States is more than just the platform and policies that they bring to the office. If they were, then Bill Clinton could arguably be considered one of the greatest presidents ever. Due however, to his behavior and his questionable character there is a large segment of the population who, every time they think of him, think of a stained blue dress and feel at least mildly nauseous. The Clintons don’t get that the president is, in a sense, the embodiment of the American people, of what it is to be American.

I, for one, and I think men in general, including all those democratic husbands who want to support their wives, and even might have voted for Hillary in their primaries, when we get into that voting booth and really think about it, do not want a hatchet-faced nasty woman who seems will use any dirty trick in the book to get what she wants to be the symbol that represents us. And believe me; they will be pulling the ABH (anyone but Hillary) lever. Is that sexist and chauvinistic? Perhaps, but it doesn’t keep it from being true.

How about this;

Hillary Clinton is stridently yawping about Obama’s connection to Rezko. Hmm, so she thinks that if you’ve been connected in any way with a sleazy businessman and there’s a shady land deal thrown in, then you’re not fit to be the president? Wouldn’t you say that was a case of Mrs. Pot calling the Obama black? And don’t even get me started on NAFTA. Hypocrite!!!

Oh, one more thing;

Clinton’s supporters seem like nice people, they say things like; they’re voting for her because they like her health care plan, or they think she’s tough, or it’s about time a woman was president, all fair and rational reasons. But, if she were to lose the nomination, I’m betting that most of them would fall in line to support Obama.

Guess what? Obamanites have drunk all the cool-aid. They aren’t supporters; they are disciples. They think, as do I, that Hillary is underhandedly trying to steal this election, and if she connives here way into the nomination, not only will large numbers of them not vote for her, they may even feel the need to punish her by voting for the opposition.

Think about it…

How about Obama?

His detractors are trying to portray him as someone who talks pretty, who is only empty rhetoric, but I think they’ve missed the essence of the man.

Barack Obama isn’t Christ incarnate. He’s not JFK reborn. He’s just a man. But a man who has realized that words, used in the proper way have power. In this case the power to energize one generation, and re-energize another. To gently chide us into understanding that the only way to recover our political system, and take back our country is by doing it ourselves.

His rhetoric calls us to action, making no bones about the fact that it will be hard thankless work, but work that has to be done, and that we are the ones who need to do it.

So, here’s how it plays out, at least in my mind;

You can vote for and send Barack Obama into the fray against John McCain. Maybe he wins, and if he does, maybe America finally stands up, cleans out its gutters, makes some hard choices, goes in the right direction, and once again becomes the shining city it was always meant to be.

Or, you can vote for Hilary Clinton and elect John McCain.

That’s what I think, but then what do I know, I’m just a stupid conservative.

Iraqi born Rezko is Obama’s friend of 17 years and a well known mob figure.

Rezko served on Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign finance committee and raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

The Chicago Sun Times reports: ‘state senator Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14M from taxpayers to build apartments’.

Obama told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

How does Obama get away with this? Where is the media on this unbelievable topic?

Clinton sez: "I'm a fighter" but when she gets punched she wails, "Wah, I'm a girl!"

Clinton has gone from a 20% lead to somewhere in the 5-10% range and thinks this is good news.

Clinton complains she is outspent 3-1 on advertising. But anybody with 2 neurons knows it's because Obama has 3-1 the amount of money she has. Why? Because she isn't able to raise more money than him. Because she mismanaged the money she did raise. Does anybody think that Clinton would NOT outspend Obama if she could?

It's all just political spin from the Clinton whirl-i-gig.

It's been a 'civil' nomination campaign -- on one side.

A year ago, looking forward, I felt I would be able to easily vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election, should she get the nomination.

Now, despite my dismay at the dithering confusion that John McCain seems to have fallen into (he now doesn't seem to be able to sort out who the primary players are in Iraq -- a very, very bad sign at the start of what could be an 8 year presidency), it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to vote for her.

If Clinton manages to cheat, lie or steal the nomination out from under Obama, it will be a very dark day in this household.

This was the fairest debate to date. I am sure that will cause Obama to quit debating. His followers seem to believe that any questioning of their leader is heresy.