« “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” | Main | Liveblogging The Republican Debate »

Clinton Will Close On Electability, Readies Contrast Ads Obama

12 Dec 2007 10:35 am

Inexperience and Unelectability it is.

The Clinton campaign has settled on its final argument against Barack Obama, and is using two new national polls to kick start an aggressive campaign in the national media designed to raise questions about his competence and experience.

In a variety of conference calls over the next few days, in surrogate appearances, and in memos distributed to reporters, the campaign will directly challenge Obama on points of his resume, on past statements of his, on the details of his current policy plans, and on his campaign's pushback that it is Clinton who is not electable. By significant margins, Democrats believe that Clinton is the most electable Democrat and that she will win the nomination, and that she has the requisite experience to be president.

The Clinton campaign wants to spread the idea that Obama would be crushed in a general election by a Republican nominee who is more experienced and more glib than he is. They're prepared to question his credentials from Obama;'s right and left, pointing today, for example, to a 1996 report that he favored registering hand guns.

Campaign aides have said that Obama's support for retroactivity in drug sentences would kill him with tough-on-crime white independents. But the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 decision yesterday that included Antonin Scalia, endorsed the view that judges could ignore sentencing guidelines when handing down prison terms for distributing crack versus powder cocaine, and a Bush administration panel today voted seven to nothing to impose retroactivity.

From the left, the campaign is readying contrast ads to be used against Barack Obama; they take on his health care plan and use quotations from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman to question why Obama is using "Republican" talking points on the issue. No decision has been made to run the ads, campaign sources said. General details about the campaign's ad plans and several other points in this here post were first reported by the Associated Press.

The approach carries risk. Polls show that Clinton is judged to be running the most negative campaign of all the Democrats, and if voters come to perceive her campaign as being in attack mode, her own favorability ratings could suffer.

But the upside is obvious. In 2004, Iowa voters swung towards John Kerry during the final month after he presented himself as the candidate best able to take on President Bush, and as Howard Dean repeatedly and publicly committed unforced errors that raised concerns about his own viability.

With 23 days to go, Clinton needs to move now. Already, some advisers to Bill Clinton are speaking to reporters in hushed tones about what they see as strategic miscues by the current Hillary Clinton leadership team.

Bill Clinton himself is "concerned," one adviser said, but knows that his wife has complete confidence in her choices. And, truth be told, none of the mistakes that have hurt Clinton in Iowa have had anything to do with senior management. Much of Barack Obama's recent success is attributable to Obama himself and his campaign's formidable Iowa field organization, which was developed by state director Paul Tewes. The Obama campaign regularly attracts more than 70 Iowans to its mock caucuses, a figure suggesting that Obama's support is wide and deep.

Of most concern to Clinton's team is the notion that her support has topped out in Iowa and that few undecided Iowans will break her way. That's led them to recalibrate the way they describe her path to the nomination to reporters. Right now, the campaign emphasizes her strength in New Hampshire and its penchant for judging candidates independently of Iowa. (No word on yet on what the Clinton campaign thinks of the new WMUR/CNN poll.)

Clinton has two challenges in Iowa: she cannot let Barack Obama beat her -- the campaign would much rather lose to John Edwards. But she cannot come in third, unless the margins separating all three top candidates are really close.

Both the Obama and Edwards campaigns believe that an Iowa loss would be a severe psychological blow to Clinton's chances in more respects than one. Voters on the fence about Clinton -- and Clintonism -- would feel less dissonance about voting against her if they saw their peers in Iowa force her to third place.

Comments (99)

Nice write-up, Marc. Very thoughtful and balanced (though I still don't know why anyone would buy Hillary's "I am experienced" argument...).

And the truth is that even Bill himself has lost some mojo on the trail. Let's see how Hillary handles pressure now.

We'll see what Obama is made of in these last weeks. Honestly, if he can beat Clinton (Clinton!), then he is "electable," including in the GE. But he's still got a long way to go. I hope Obama is preparing as hard for tomorrow's debate as HRC apparently is. She is going to try to take him down tomorrow, no question.

He better have answers about Krugman, those ridiculous questionnaires, and "electability" that roll off his tongue.

I find the electability issue fascinating. On the one hand, there is indeed a lot of evidence that Democrats believe that Clinton is the most electable of their possible nominees. On the other hand, there is also a lot of evidence available that they might be wrong about that (meaning evidence that Obama, and indeed Edwards, are arguably both more electable than Clinton).

So, basically, the Clinton campaign is apparently hoping that they can get Democrats to focus on something they already believe and make that the deciding consideration. But they also have to be hoping that Democrats do not start reconsidering what they believe in light of the available evidence.

And unfortunately for Clinton, they are not in complete control of the information voters will get. Moreover, somewhat ironically, it does seem that the best evidence that Obama could hope to get with respect to his political competence is Clinton going after him with everything she has, and Obama still winning.

So in more ways than one, this is a very high risk approach for Clinton. But at this point, I guess they are pretty much out of options.

Obama has a good electability answer ready to go:

"This from the candidate that more than 50% of Americans say they wouldn't even consider supporting..."

There is also an implicit race issue here that I think HIllary might want to stray away from....

I think if Obama survives this final push from the Clinton team he'll be pretty much fine for the general election. Taking down Hillary Clinton in the democratic primary isn't exactly an easy thing to do.

Re some comments above, I agree tomorrow's debate will be important.

Marc,

Reading this I could not help but think about how HRClinton changed to 'strength and experience' when the polls showed that more folks saw her as the experienced candidate. Only to later find out that experience only takes a candidate so far when it comes to change vs. experience.

I beleive we will see the same pattern with the 'inelectable' meme...voters are going to perceive that as the negative attack to Hillary being 'inevitable'. I suspect that voters will have a response of 'who are you to tell us HE is unelectable and that you are inevitable'...this can be reinforced by the Obama campaign running Hillary's interview with Couric where she unequivocably asserts that she WILL be the nominee.

That interview should be juxtaposed with all of the equivocating statements that HRClinton make and Obama saying that she is the candidate who tells us what we want to hear, and that includes her being inevitable.

Yet, we know this is a defining momemt in America and we do not what HRClinton to tell us six months or a year from now, that 'ifonlysheknewthenwhatweknownow'

as she has about the most significant event in America history that she voted for the Iraq war.

Whereas, you see the risk for her as being perceived as negative.

I see the risk as much more profound...it will cement the idea that Hillary is simply not believable.

So there theory is the 1996 questionnaire will trump the last 11 years of his public political record? If this is her argument, then she loses. She looks desperate quite frankly....

Obama should knock this out of the park.

With respect to the electability issue, Hillary is pointing to polls of dems. I'm sure she knows this, but dems aren't the only people who get to vote in a general election.

The CNN poll from a couple days ago actually showed that Edwards was the most electable, beating the top four Republicans by wide margins. Barack tied McCain, and beat all others by fair margins. On the other hand, Hillary lost to McCain, and her lead over the other 3 was much smaller than either Barack or Edwards. I'm sure Obama will have this one in his pocket to fire back.

I admit it. I love our system. Primaries and all. I know this view is being challenged these days, but, I still think it's a pretty good test of one's suitability for office. We get to see a potential president, Hillary Clinton, manage a crisis. Good stuff. Maybe she pulls through. Maybe not.

So, basically, the Clinton campaign is apparently hoping that they can get Democrats to focus on something they already believe and make that the deciding consideration. But they also have to be hoping that Democrats do not start reconsidering what they believe in light of the available evidence.

I think there's a "wisdom of crowds" thing going on here. Electibility is not just a measure of whether they like you or not. Nixon was loathed by millions. There's a lot involved: gravitas, experience, intelligence, toughness, emotional maturity, ruthlessness. Perhaps the crowd rightly sees qualities in Hillary Clinton that would make her a formidable national candidate, including the "quality" of everyone's knowing every bad thing there is to know about her. There can't possibly be skeletons that remain in the closet.

I can imagine Edwards and Obama doing very well in a G.E., but I can also imagine them imploding. I can't see Hillary imploding.

As a Obama supporter, I hope to god that Clinton goes negative on him. It will backfire in a big way.

Kinduva combo of smear and Hail Mary, seems like.

So on the retroactivity issue Senator Clinton is on the right of Antonin Scalia, because she is afraid of what Rudy will say, but she sure will turn the heat on the republicans. I'm speechless when i hear democrats saying that electing this woman will be good for the party. This issue was about resolving inequities in the judicial system. I've always thought that the party of FDR, JFK, RFK will fight for equal justice.

Like my teenage son, voters (particularly PC voters) say what they think the well meaning pollsters want to hear. It is one thing to say you will vote for Obama, and quite another to actually do it. I think he is terrific, but I don't think for one second that he can win in the general election. I am petrified that all of the Democrats who believed in WMD's (and shouldn't have and wouldn't have if they had a teenage son who is a professional liar....), will support Obama all the way into a new Republican president in the White House.

What about Kindergate? Clinton didn't want that to be her smear for the sprint?

Careful what you wish for:

Hillary is coming in 3rd in Iowa.

Senator Clinton can show videos called "Caucusing is Easy" all she wants, but guess what Hillary-- liking you as a candidate is not easy, even for a Democrat. Cold, calculating and arrogant from the start.

Enough with the Clintons.

Go Obama, Go Edwards, Go Richardson.

I find the electability issue fascinating. On the one hand, there is indeed a lot of evidence that Democrats believe that Clinton is the most electable of their possible nominees. On the other hand, there is also a lot of evidence available that they might be wrong about that (meaning evidence that Obama, and indeed Edwards, are arguably both more electable than Clinton).

John Kerry also won the nomination based on electability even though it was obvious from the get go that he was a miserable campaigner. Democratic primary voters have odd notions about electability, and, sadly, often let those notions drive their voting decisions...

As we write, there are about 30-40% undecided in Iowa.

In 2004 Kerry saw a huge jump in his crowd size the last two weeks. Some were convinced by the electability argument some were not and went to candidate who hadn't gone negative, Edwards.

The in-caucus dynamic was for Edwards, not so much for Kerry, as it was Edwards who gained up to 6% compared to caucus entry polls.

NONE went to Dean or Gephardt.

Unlike Kerry in Iowa circa Dec 2004, Hillary is a known quantity. Her strikes ought to be surgical, but her campaign has shown no capacity for effective attacking.

Now there won't be time for any upswing in her crowds with the vacation and all so these caucuses will be decided on the Christmas dinner table.

If Hillary goes negative, I hope Gibbs produces an ad that shows Hillary's duplicity on EVERY imaginable issue, healthcare, Iraq, jobs, NAFTA etc. Coupled to Obama's speeches that Democrats made a real difference when they stood on principle that will seal the deal.

Forget the WMUR poll. Another New Hampshire poll released this morning has Obama in the LEAD in New Hampshire -- by 3%!! Truly shocking!

Electability is an extremely fuzzy concept . . . it's impossible to predict with any certainty.

In reality this electability (non)issue is a smokescreen. They want us to forget Hillary's huge negative ratings. They want us to forget that Obama has significant support from Republican and Independent voters. They want us to forget that if Hillary Clinton is elected her divisive baggage and the 51-49 split comes with her.

I'm not forgetting. I'm voting Obama.

I am totally flummoxed as to how the Clintons think they can win that argument. In the national general election polls that match up dems and repubs, Edwards AND Obama come out as more electable than Hillary.

Doesn't anyone look at the national polls?

Edwards and Obama both trounce the repub competition, whereas Hillary LOSES to the repubs in alot of polls. I don't get it!

But then again, i can't believe she's been able to convince people she has experience, either, so.....who knows?

J.B.,

Kerry and Edwards were very GOOD campaigners in Iowa in the month prior to the caucuses.

That has to go hand in hand with the electability issue.

Hillary's crowds are getting smaller and smaller. That's the real indication of what's happening in Iowa. Going negative does not get the crowd numbers up.

For the record, Kerry DID go negative but only in direct mail not on TV.

She's more electable? Look at the crowds that Obama draws. She has only had one fairly large crowd that was in Iowa back in July when they drug Bill out. 3,500-4,000. Obama draws huge crowds, with or without Oprah. There's no way she's more electable. Obama will get votes from independents and some republicans. Hillary won't. The kindergarten essay didn't work, now it's the questionaire from 1996. And Paul Krugman should just take a flying leap. The Clintons are the last 2 in the world that should be questioning Senator Obama's past. Do they really want to go there again?

Sleeping in the White House does not count for experience. We are a representative democracy - not a monarchy. Are you Looking to 'reap' eight more years of nepotism like the seven we've just had ? Not me.

Although her sputtering machine would have us believe that she is the 'electable' choice - this argument falls unquestionably flat - she will drive more republicans to the polls and does not inspire confidence in her own party... go look at the polling yourself.

I voted for this lady in her NY senate race.
I voted for her husband twice (would have again).... but ignoring all conviction and tri-angulating her response to Bush's rush to 'war' in Iraq was and is unforgivable. Afghanistan,as any a monkey knew, was and is a noble cause. If a person in her position could not figure out what was happening with our rush to a false war- in Iraq - then whatever limited experience she does have - counts for very little.
Worse yet, and far more likely, she knew exactly what was happening... she crunched the numbers and made what turned out to be a bad bet - IRAQ. Ooops! And now we're stuck with what is partly the mess of her making. I will NOT ever vote for anyone who supported the Iraq ruse.

Fool me once...

So NO Thanks Mama - I'm for Obama !

Barak Obama for President of the United States of America .

-Go Barry !

Anyone challenging the competence and experience of Hillary Rodham Clinton is speaking out of political ignorance.
The person does not know her.

It is really amazing how polls based on baseline surveys of respondents who are not even up to 100, 000 are being used to define the intelligence of millions of voters and the electability of presidential candidates?

The majority of the eligible voters in the United States of America will not vote for Senator Barack Hussein Obama in the presidential election.

30,000 fans of Oprah Winfrey giving Obama standing ovation did so to impress Oprah.
Eye service and lip service will not win the election for Obama.

If you think most African Americans will vote for him, then you are ignorant of the intelligence of enlightened African American voters.

Obama is playing to the gallery of Americans and actually more inconsistent and cagy than any of the presidential candidates of the Democratic Party.

The forces setting up Senator Barack Obama against Senator Hillary Clinton want to destabilize the unity of the Democratic Party to weaken both presidential candidates and give the Republicans advantage over the Democrats after the primaries.

Senator Barack Obama and the others should step down for Senator Hillary Clinton, because it would be better and safer to support her than to undermine her.

The Democrats will lose the presidential election if they fail to nominate Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

If all a presidential candidate needs to win the presidential election is to rant about his opposition to the war in Iraq, than he has no business in the White House.

We support Senator Hillary Clinton for President.
Let us save America before cookie crumbles.

Some of us have Clinton fatigue already.

She attacks Obama on her own weakest issues. Inelectibility. Right.

This electability question is kind of interesting. Since HRC poll-tests her every utterance, hasn't she seen that all the GE polls out there have last in "electability"?

Obama's sheer Audaucity and the support he's received accross the country is amazing. Go OBAMA!!!

As a progressive political practitioner, the constant fascination with Bill Clinton, (and Hillary’s eagerness to bask) remains factually tenuous bearing in mind the reality that the agenda on which Bill Clinton ran in 1992 never came to fruition - and were it not for the oversight and scrutiny from the Republican Congress and economic forces beyond his control...he would have had a lackluster and scandal-laden Presidency.

On the foreign front, the absence of extraordinary accomplishments, and noteworthy pitfalls such as his refusal to intervene during the Rwandan genocide (when all that was requested of him was to jam radio signals and prevent the loss of almost a million lives) seriously brings into question the foreign policy claims, and leaves me to believe that the support he currently gets from the African community will prove to be without merit as the public tunes in over the next month.

The more Hillary touts her affiliation to Bill Clinton as the basis of her experience, the more traction Obama will gain – because Bill Clinton, as shrewd a politico as he was, is all charm and no substance.

It is about time we focus on common sense over charm...particularly because in Barack Obama America can have both.

America - with Barack Obama, we can have the best of what we are! This is a change election…and I believe Barack Obama is the only candidate out there who will make America whole. Go Barack!

No shocker here. Contrast between HRC and Obama was always needed, despite the pundits saying that it was Obama who needed to make that argument.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Anony@1:17pm

You have hit the nail on the head. It is Clinton fatigue that is setting in ALREADY.

Because, we have seen this before..it is like deja vu...'going to the mattresses' with the Godfather type come around again.

The Clintons need to get off the stage and go home.

Any Democrat who supported them in the 90s through all those shenanigans, and legal issues, and triangulating...sense that returning like a wave over them...and we are weary having been through those battles before...we just want to move on.

Clinton fatigue is just how Barack's campaign should describe it...we do not want another 4 years of that. It is stale, tired and old.

Worst of all what do we have to show for it as a country? The Clinton administration resulted in a GOP majority in the Congress and 8 more years of a GOP President...the worst ever BTW because Americans just wanted to turn the page after the sordid nature of what WJClinton acts in the oval office.

Democrats we need to turn the page we do not want to go back to those tumultous times. Hillary doesn't even have the charm Bill does to make it anywhere near bearable...it will be viscious and demeaning and so totally unproductive.

Orikinla Osinachi: I love the way you refer to Obama as Senator Barack HUSSEIN Obama. It provides the reader with all the information we need to judge YOUR character and credibility.

Hit him again, harder, harder!

I will be so delighted if the Clinton machine ends up a smoking hulk, hoist by its own "deck em" petard.

I've never, ever heard of a candidate winning a primary by convincing Dem prime voters that their preferred candidate was too liberal to win. But the idea of Hilary Clinton making that argument is so rich.

If this is really their strategy, I think this is going to go down as the last time anyone tries to run a campaign based on big money, top consultants and inevitability ever again.

Excuse me, but the truth is the polls refect Edwards as the candidate with the most "electability" to beat every Republican candidate--where Clinton out and loses and Obama is neck and neck.
That is the real state of affairs while the clueless pundits and corporate media focus on the annoited candidates.
Let the two corporate frontrunners rip each other to shreds.

This poll released by Zogby International on Monday, November 26, 2007, shows definitively that Senator Barack Obama is the most electable Democrat running for president in 2008. Obama is soundly beating all 5 major Republican candidates, while Clinton is loosing to all 5:


Zogby:

Clinton 38%
McCain 42%

Clinton 40%
Giuliani 43%

Clinton 40%
Romney 43%

Clinton 39%
Huckabee 44%

Clinton 40%
Thompson 44%

HOWEVER:

Obama 45%
McCain 38%

Obama 46%
Giuliani 41%

Obama 46%
Romney 40%

Obama 46%
Huckabee 40%

Obama 47%
Thompson 40%

Texas Republican for Obama!

Orikinla Osinachi: Resistance is not futile. The Borg Queen cannot incorporate your mind unless you let her. Oh...she already has yours...NEVERMIND.

Gus - "I've never, ever heard of a candidate winning a primary by convincing Dem prime voters that their preferred candidate was too liberal to win."

Isn't that effectively what happened to Dean?

Hillary is a known quantity. Her strikes ought to be surgical, but her campaign has shown no capacity for effective attacking.

A big problem for her campaign is her lack of experience attacking fellow Democrats. It's tricky stuff. She and her husband's political operation bludgeoned GOP opposition in election after election -- a dozen or more by my count. But they've had very little experience in the way of having to fight to secure a nomination.

I bet Hillary badly wishes she had decided to sit out Iowa this time, like Bill did in 1992. Might sound implausible to do so, but, she could have come out with a "brave" speech at the beginning of 2007 coming out against ethanol subsidies. Would have given her the perfect excuse, just like McCain, and so removed expectations. Oh well. Too late now. She had better hope her NH firewall holds up.

Orikinla Osinachi: I love the way you refer to Obama as Senator Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

A) It happens to be his name.

B) You can be sure the Republicans won't have any qualms about using it, or citing his past cocaine use, or whispering about his polygamous Muslim father, or his childhood in a country known for Islamic terrorism, or his studies at a Madrassa. You can also be sure a lot of moderate voters responding favorably to his candidacy in opinion polls haven't yet heard such rumors.

CMS, interesting point about Dean. The thing is, he wasn't attacked for being too liberal -- other than the infamous national security/ Osama ad. Most of Gephardt's attacks on him, and Edwards' implied attacks, came from the left on economic issues.

Still, you could make the case that Iowa voters turned away from him in the end for that reason. I suppose that is what the Clinton campaign has in mind.

The Republicans will probably also discover and publicize that much of his "community organizing" include outrageous public expenditures that resulted in boarded up tenements and development fees for friends. And LOL at his "civil rights lawyer" resume next year as the Tony Rezko trial discloses his real estate work!

Orikinla Osinachi -- my understanding is that you are a Hillary supporter. I can guarantee you that the things you are saying on this blog are not helping your candidate in the primary. If you want to put out such distasteful misinformation, you may want to at least hide you who actually support. Ethical Hillary supporters would, no doubt, cringe to read your posts.

"I can imagine Edwards and Obama doing very well in a G.E., but I can also imagine them imploding. I can't see Hillary imploding."

Whether you can withstand an implosion is kind of moot if 50% of the electorate are predisposed to voting for you from the get-go, isn't it? "Imploding" implies that you at least had a lead at some point in the past, doesn't it?

Important correction: "if 50% of the electorate are predisposed to voting AGAINST you." That's sort of important.

He certainly polls better among republicans and independents. But yeah, the more negative HRC goes the better. No matter how mean the intramural contest, the general election is going to be ten times uglier.

He needs to avoid going after her, though: it's vital for the Obama camp to make HRC supporters welcome, and if it turns into a two-way tussle, Edwards wins.

Orikinla Osinachi, Hussein does happen to be his middle name. I don't think that's the problem, the problem is you using it as a slur and implying that it's something to be ashamed of. I beg you, on behalf of the rational part of my brain, please, please stop with the anti-Muslim propoganda and the "Obama attended a madrassa" lie, which I don't even want to bother to refute for the umpteenth time. If you want to entertain us by repeating lies attempting to stir up feelings of xenophobia, at least come up with some I haven't heard before, 'cause these ones just make you sound unoriginal as well as stupid.

I am an independent who generally leans a little more to the right (For this contest, I am actually a McCain supporter). However, if McCain is not the Republican candidate, I would definitely vote for Obama before anyone else. Many of my traditionally Republican-leaning friends (I'm a 25 yr old white male), feel the same way about Obama. I would think that the Democrats should welcome an influx of this kind of voter. Most of my peers cannot stand Hillary and would never vote for her. I can't fathom why Mark Penn would have HRC push this elect-ability issue when it is obviously a negative factor.

Clinton pulls a Willie Horton on Obama!

As an Obama supporter, i hope he does better in teh debate than he has been doing. He seems to have the same demeanor as Kerry during debates. He anwers the questions with a speech, instead of engaging the question. He can't respond in a conversational tone, which would make him appear more down to earth and allow him to make the points that differentiate him from Clinton. He makes the same points when fiving a speech at a rally, but a debate isn't a rally, it's a conversation.

A debate gives one the opportunity to draw comparisons in a more relaxed way...a way that often touches people more easily than when a speech is being given. Hard to explain...but hope i got my point accross.

Obama can win. He has a rising tide of momentum because he is genuine and he has fire. Clinton's brittle calculation will collapse in on her finally. Here we have one of the most dynamic and inspirational leaders since JFK. Even Republicans are taking a second look. Of all Democrats he is the only one who can unite this country. Go Obama!

Obama is another Jimmy Carter -- all concept and feeling, no sense of strategy and process. These are not times for leaders who do not appear to have anything to back up their 'inspiration' beyond charisma. The country needs a smart manager who knows how to fix things, multi-task, and address new problems that will invariably arise. It seems that people instinctively know this and that is why Hillary Clinton is inevitable as both the Democratic nominee and the next president.

Her campaign is an absolute nightmare. She HAS credentials, why doesn't she look at the bigger picture and stop scrapping with the new kid on the block? Btwn Bill stumping for her talking about how he wanted to break up with her, and her going after now Obama's drug use of all things, she's beginning to look small. She continues to alienate people and burn bridges when she doesn't have to. It's driving me nuts because I wouldn't mind seeing her OR obama in the white house. She has so many assets, she doesn't need to play bully...what a micromanaging dingbat.

Amazing to me that we Democrats have complained for the last 7 years, among other things, of the division created by the Bushecons. Putting the "reasons" of the divide aside, we all can agree that the divide in itself, was largely to blame for some of the issues we are facing today.
With that said, why would we as Democrats choose the most polarizing figure in our field as our Nominee? Is this going to be a "you screwed us, now we're screwing you" kind of nominee? Because thats what Hillary being our nominee would be. Another 4 years of divide.
We want to walk into office in Jan. 09 with a political divide ALREADY IN PLACE? Ask yourselves, is thats what best for AMERICA?
I believe the type of divide created by the Clinton administration was not good for AMERICA. I didnt personally care about his affair, but that divide hurt US as a country. When casting your vote, place the needs of this country first.

It's over for the Clintons. Bill is wearing thin with the general populace.

Oh yeah, the Main Stream Media is still fawning, but Mr. and Mrs. Average American have had enough of the egocentricity that oozes from WJC.

Democrats are headed for a train wreck, and, blinded by the Oprah spotlight, so far they refuse to see it.

I'm an Independent who votes Democratic. I've been on the fence, but recently I've been moving toward Hillary. She has the experience, and although I have had qualms about her, I increasingly find her proposals more in line with my moderate philosophy. Also, I've concluded that Barack Obama will not win if he's nominated, and if he goes against a more experienced and moderate Republican -- Giuliani, McCain or even a Thompson -- I will be voting for the Republican.

Experience does matter. Obama would eliminate the Democrats' ability to capitalize on the mistakes we made by electing the inexperienced Bush and Republicans will be ready to tie him up on foreign policy miscues, his lack of experience on dealing with economic issues, his waffling on immigration, and his very poor voting record during his brief time in the U.S. Senate.

PLEASE GO MORE NEGATIVE HILLARY---PLEASE GO NEGATIVE---I LOVE NEGATIVE ADS--I WILL VOTE FOR YOU---I LOVE YOUR SMILES TOO WHEN YOU GIVE SPEECHES

everyone on here praises obama like he will be able to wave some sort of magic wand when he is president and solve all our nation's problems. the problem is that he has been in the senate 3 years and no one on here is pointing to a single thing he has done. being president is more than eloquent speeches and filling arenas, and obama has not shown that he can do more than that.

I don't know about IA because of its odd caucus system but I don't care what these state polls say the chances of Clinton losing in NH and all the other states are negligible. Take a look at those national polls. Obama is considered electable by only 8% in the ABC poll and 14% in the CBS NYT one. The idea that in some way the belief systems of democratic voters in NH, SC, or IA for that matter are substantially different sounds very fanciful to me. And the idea that with numbers like this the Democratic party is going to make Obama the nominee suggests they have a death wish which is unlikely I'd say. Since I live in NH and was subjected to one of these polls last evening I'd say they are very shaky reeds to base one's assessment of where the campaign is at present. But we'll see.

INTERESTING READING! THANKS Tell Oprah ...OBAMA'S BACKGROUND CHECK !!!!!! I am surprised that you have not done your homework. We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself. Probable U.S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein
Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.? When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama t akes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is no longer Muslim. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, as all of our other public officials, but instead the Koran. Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest evel - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Obama cannot win the general election. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming. First, he has never been associated with a national campaign. Second, if you believe there are enough color-blind voters out there to make a difference, you're wrong. I wish that weren't true, but it is. Third, Hillary's strength lies in the fact that the majority of voters in this country are women. She has a good chance of activating single young women to come out and vote - and that's her greatest cheer leading section. This election may be the most important election of our lives. For God's sake, don't grab defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating someone who cannot win.

Obama can win. He has a rising tide of momentum because he is genuine and he has fire. Clinton's brittle calculation will collapse in on her finally. Here we have one of the most dynamic and inspirational leaders since JFK.

You're dreaming. With Obama it's all excitement and aspirations, but no beef.

Even with his vigor and charisma, JFK very nearly lost the election to the experienced Richard Nixon. In the end, Kennedy proved to be tough, and brought fourteen years of Washington experience to the campaign. Obama joined the senate in 2005. God help the Democrats if they head into battle with Obama against somebody like John McCain.

Clinton is not electable. She would destroy the Democrats in Congressional races because she is hated so much by the right. Do Democratic voters want that?

I find it amusing that people trash Hillary Clinton, saying she is "cold, calculating and arrogant."

Give me a break! This is a competition--a competition to be the most scrutinized person in the world!

Is Hillary "cold, calculating and arrogant?" NO!! She has taken more nasty jabs from everyone else than she has given--for sure! If she is "cold, calculating and arrogant," then so are her opponents.

At the end of the day, each of the candidates are trying to win. It just pisses me off that everyone slams Hillary so openly. She is doing exactly what the other candidates are doing, with the exception of one thing: SHE IS DOING IT BETTER! That is the reason why everyone pounces on her! The other candidates are cheered on when they are tough, but for some reason, Hillary is not permitted to be tough without going down in the polls.

I am a man, and I must say that men have run this country since the beginning. It's time for a change. Seeming "cold and calculating" doesn't sound so bad when compared to the other choices! We need someone with a poker face, and we need someone who can make decisions. As for arrogance, PLEASE . . . every politician is arrogant!

The last thing I want is a president who skips the vote simply to improve his/her image. I want a president who is present and aware of what is going on. Hillary knows exactly what is going on. I would rather a president make choices, correct or incorrect. I don't want a president who can't make choices--ahem . . . Barack Obama. Hillary has made some choices not so well received by Americans, but at least she made a choice.

She is a force to be reckoned with, and I think people are just hating on her because she is a woman, as well as because the media has portrayed her to be a certain way. She is a good woman, who loves our country and who has devoted her life to serving the world.

Eat your heart out because she will win, and she will be the best president we have ever had . . . hands down!

PS: Barack Obama will not win the general election if he is the chosen democrat. Simply stated, there are 50 states with millions of people voting. Racism is something that is HUGE in this country. Does one really believe that "white" America will vote for a black president? Personally, if he is the candidate, I will; however, will America? I don't think so.

To: Poster, Michael Franklin


Hillary - Experince?

The only experience Hillary has is being in a law firm that was shuttled business via her mate, WJC, when he was Gov. of Arkansas.

Well, I forgot her dabbling in cattle futures and her investing in a get-rich land scheme in Arkansas. I guess you could count this as experience.

Some experience.

First, many thanks to the folks who make this blog possible. I'm convinced, as are many others, that the blog-o-sphere will play a huge part in the upcoming presidential election, and in elections to follow. That being said, those who read my posts know I'm no fan of either Bill, or Hillary Clinton. I have to pinch myself every time I realize these two are trying to get back into the White House. It was a disaster the last time. I liken the Clintons to some national hair-ball, that just keeps on coming up. Anyway, now Hillary says Obama is too far left. Does anyone remember Hillary's campus days as a hard-left devotee of Saul D. Alensky? Yeah, that Saul D. Alinsky. She's betting that you don't. Here's a dyed in the wool Alinskyite, telling another candidate he's far left. Just a reminder, these are the same Clintons who branded Monica Lewinsky a stalker. But here's something even more sinister these two need answer for: http://theseedsof9-11.com

To: Poster, Ziggie

Experience? Are you kidding me? She didn't just organize the WH Easter hunt and decorate for Christmas.

She was one of the most active and participating first ladies we have ever had. With that, she has accomplished a lot, as first lady of Arkansas, as well as senator of New York. Let us compare her resume to those resumes of the other candidates. PUHLEASE!! I don't remember hearing about Obama's or Edwards' accomplishments over the years.

Hillary has consistently remained an agent for change. Just a little over a year ago, nobody even knew who Barack was (has he changed the state of Illinois?). As far as Edwards is concerned, he lost the last time around and ended up being second (has he changed since 2004?).

You should feel blessed that Hillary could be our next president. At least we know from her past that she will serve us well. What about Obama's and Edwards' past shows us they will serve our country, no matter how large or small the issue is?

Hmmm . . .

What experience does clinton have other than trashing Bill's extra affairs!!

There's one huge difference between Obama and Dean 2004 - Obama won't trip. He's too savvy and, thanks to his years on the Southside Chicago streets, organized.

Those who doubt his electability in white, rural America need look only to his U.S. Senate primary campaign in Illinois. He was running behind and no one expected him to win. Sure, the frontrunner's campaign imploded but the most likely contender was a fine, white guy from the North Side of Chicago. Barack Obama won because he busted his butt throughout rural, lily-white, downstate Illinois. He's doing the same in Iowa. Unlike Hillary, he did not rely on media exposure to help him in rural communities. Instead, he actually showed up - something that HRC may be learning too late.

Yes, Obama has star power, but he wins votes on intelligence, authenticity and pragmatism. No, he's not perfect, but who is?

Putting Bill Clinton could well backfire for HRC as it increasingly begs the question: If he cannot be controlled on the campaign trail, what makes anyone think that he can be controlled back in the White House? It only weakens her experience stance as it increases the perception that it's his experience that matters, not hers.

A few weeks ago, an elderly gentleman from South Carolina called into CNBC. In a gentle, weary voice, he said: "I just wish the Clintons would go away and get on with their lives."

AMEN!

I hope Hillary is the nominee. People will come out in droves just to vote against her. She's power-hungry and her left-wing policies suck. Warren "Buffon" Buffet showed his butt by backing the witch!! Senility must be getting him.

GO JOHN GO! We LOVE you, and are with you all the way to the White House. Have a Merry Iowa Christmas!

To "Oprah should have researched":

You're the one who should have done your research. Nearly every "fact" you cited was a fabrication or a case of mistaken identity. Just one example: It was Keith Ellison, a Democratic congressman from Minnesota, who took the oath of office with his hand on the Koran, not Obama. it's no surprise you provided no links to the source of your slanders.

Whenever I see garbage like this, I have to ask myself: Could I possibly vote for a candidate whose supporters are so shamelessly dishonest and/or completely ignorant of the truth? The answer, of course, is a resounding and unequivocal "no."

Obama would be the best choice IMO, but I could still vote for Edwards or Biden or almost any other Dem candidate come next fall. But a Hillary presidency would be a disaster for our country, period. Simply put, if Clinton wins I'll either be voting for the GOP candidate next November or I'll not cast a vote at all. (And this is coming from someone who's been a fiercely partisan, door-to-door canvassing Dem who hasn't missed an election since 1978.)

By the way, "Oprah should have researched," you also stated "I am surprised that you have not done your homework. We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself."

So I did. And snopes.com declares the allegations as False, not factual. Here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

And interestingly enough, at least two Clinton campaign associates forwarded the very same slanderous e-mail you quoted from, and were dismissed from the campaign for it. So it seems even Hillary can't tolerate circulating lies that are so transparently bigoted and stupid. LOL

To Poster Michael:

Okie Dokie,

Name one, just one thing Hillary has accomplished other than marrying WJC.

That's right, you can't name any because there are none.

To Poster Ziggie:

Well, let me count the ways. I will begin by stating that 67% of the vote went to Hillary in her senate re-election bid. I guess that means NY is satisfied with her. With that in mind, let us remember that Hillary received the majority of the votes in places that have historically been republican. If, in your mind, none of the accomplishments listed below are worth adding to her resume, then you need to move to another country or possibly consider running for president yourself.

By the way, who is Obama? He appeared in the headlines not too long ago, due to the successful sale of his book. Before that, I had no idea who he was . . . and quite frankly, neither did America.

Also, when we look at all of our past presidents, most of them cannot hold a candle to what Hillary has accomplished. Here is a list of what our previous presidents did before they became president (and remember, women did not even have the right to vote until August of 1920).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0768854.html

Like I said, eat your heart out.

First lady of Arkansas

During Rodham Clinton’s 12 years as first lady of Arkansas, she continued to pursue children and family issues. She chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee to improve the testing standards of new teachers, founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and introduced Arkansas Home Instruction for Preschool Youth, a program that trained parents of preschool children in preparedness and literacy. The first lady also served on the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services board, Children’s Defense Fund board, while continuing to work for the Rose Law Firm. She was named one of the 100 most influential attorneys in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991 (this is more than just an everyday accomplishment). She was also named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

First lady of the White House

When the Clintons moved into the White House in 1993, the president appointed his wife to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform that proposed a national health plan. The controversial plan failed to receive enough support to reach the floors of Congress and was abandoned in September 1994. Rodham Clinton attributed her political inexperience as a contributor to its defeat, as well as other factors.

Not since Eleanor Roosevelt had a first lady so actively participated in public policy. Unaccustomed to the first lady’s central role in the shaping of public policy, such involvement was thought inappropriate by critics. Supporters considered her role as the same as other White House advisors and contended that voters had been aware that Hillary would play an active role in the Clinton administration prior to voting him into office.

During her eight years as first lady, Rodham Clinton also initiated the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, increased research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma to the National Institute of Health, as well as assisted in determining the cause of a mysterious illness affecting veterans of the Gulf War. She also initiated and guided the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Rodham Clinton has received many prestigious awards, including the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, the President’s Award of the League of United Latin American Citizens, Role Model of the Year, by the United Steel Workers of America; the Martin Luther King Jr. Award from the Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the National Association of Elementary School Principals Distinguished Service Award. Rodham Clinton also has authored best-selling books, including her autobiography, Living History and It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, which won her the 1997 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for the recorded version.

US Senator

Since becoming a senator, Rodham Clinton has worked to strengthen New York’s economy and homeland security, while supporting a return to fiscal responsibility. She worked to bring economic relief to victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The senator introduced legislation to provide funding for threat-based homeland security to ensure adequate resources for first responders, and such high-target communities as New York City.

She serves on various senatorial committees, including the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; Environment and Public Works Committee; Special Committee on Aging; and in 2004 was the only senator on the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command. She has visited troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations, to learn about the challenges American combat forces face. She also has worked for prescription-drug safety for children, to lower the cost of prescription drugs, and to prevent contamination of the American food supply by bioterrorism. She co-sponsored legislation to extend tax credits in regions that contain designated Renewal Communities, as well as introduced legislation to increase access to broadband technology in rural areas.

Michael Franklin is an idiot and probably associated with the HRC campaign. Thanks for the talking points Michael Mark Penn! Obviously HRC is extremely smart and capable. However, Franklin's touted list merely bespeaks her relative lack of executive experience. Neither are exceptionally qualified to be president but Obama certainly brings hope of change. I'm tired of this dynastic approach to the presidency. Moreover, I hope Obama runs and wins to shut up idiots like Michael Franklin who have such little faith in our country. This nation is ready to elect an African-American president and be brought together by someone such as Obama.

"With Obama it's all excitement and aspirations, but no beef."

This post really says it all about Obama, I'm afraid. I mean, he really is a good speaker and makes me believe in this country. But I'm apparently one of the few voters who is really concerned about policy and how we get from point A to point V (the vision). You can't just talk pretty. You have to have the ideas to get us there. Barack is short on ideas and the ones he has seem borrowed and for the most part very skeletal. Hillary meanwhile has pounced on every issues and every situation we've faced during this campaign (from the housing crisis to the ecoonomy to international situations) and promoted very detailed proposals chalk full of good ideas.

I like Barack, but liking someone should not be equated with qualifications and ability. We made that mistake with Bush.

Please, Democrats, let's not be swept away by this romance. We'll be spurned in the end. And I can't bear another electoral let-down.

There's alot of talk among Democrats about uniting the country. I don't care to be united with the mouth-foaming, fundamentalist Southerners who make up today's GOP, thank you very much. After eight years of that crowd, we need a sharp, partisan swing to the left to undo the damage. I'm talking about throwing out all the bums at Justice and the Pentagon. I see nothing wrong with partisanship when we're the good guys. I'm therefore conflicted: I like Obama better and he's more liberal, but he won't be as partisan a president as Clinton.

To Poster Martel:

So, am I an idiot for choosing Hillary Clinton as my first choice?

Or am I am idiot for choosing Obama as my second choice?

I'm on your side, but you and I just differ in our choices. How does that make me an idiot? This is exactly why democrats lost the last election . . . because democrats were so involved with attacking one another.

I am not attacking Obama. I am simply explaining why I am voting for Clinton. If she loses the primary and Obama wins, I will vote for Obama. In the meantime, quit hating.

To Poster Martel:

It's funny you think I work for HRC. Actually, I don't. I just earned my master's degree in higher education administration (university administration).

I have been seeking employment since my graduation, and ironically enough, I have been putting together my resume specifically for the HRC . . . I would LOVE to work for them.

If I may, what is your problem with the HRC? They are the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. HRC envisions an America where LGBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, where they can lead their lives just as every other American.

In this country, all men and women are equal. For you to be so presumptuous about members of the HRC accounts for half of the stupidity this country harbors.

Even if I did work for the HRC, how would that contribute to a negative comment.

PUHLEASE!!! When I do become employed by the HRC, you will be one of the first to receive a mailing from me.

Hillary's has really great experience - both as first lady and as a senator. Let's take a look.

As first lady, the one thing we know she was put in charge of was health care. That turned out great, didn't it? With a democratic president, democratic congress, and polls showing 80% of Americans favoring universal coverage, she managed to fail. Very impressive. Not only that, the republicans swept to power in 94.

Now , how about the Senate. The seminal vote of her Senate career was to vote for the war authorization. Now she claims that she really didn't think Bush was going to take us to war. Hillary Clinton is many things, but stupid and naive is not one of them.

So, yeah, she's got experience all right.

I'm a registered Independent, and am leaning toward John McCain, mostly because he has the most integrity and stature to be President. If, however, he doesn't make it through the primaries, I would certainly consider Obama over the Republican candidates.

Count me among the half of the electorate who have alreaady decided we would never vote for Hillary Clinton.

When people look at electability they should take a harder look who is coming out to support the candidates. When Obama gets the nomination, he's going to go into the general election campaign with many, many people who badly want to get him elected because they like him, not because they don't like Republicans.

WDean was no Obama. here Howard Dean, stumbled, Barack hasn't, and where Dean lead with aggressiveness, Barack leads with charisma. But if Democrats end up thinking Clinton is summarily electable, they may find themselves with another Kerry.

First things first: It is just so enjoyable to watch the Howard Wolfson Attack Dog Show imploding. Bring on Paul Begala and the War Room guys for even more slime!

Tomorrow's 'debate' is the firewall for Hillary to stop the downward slide. Christmas, as they say, is coming. There's only seven more days before the holiday week takes over. If she can't lay a glove on him, here's how it goes:

Obama wins Iowa. The Republicans continue to exhibit a lackluster race that produces no visceral champion, with Huckabee muddying the waters with a victory in Iowa and no possible shot at winning the General.

Cut to: New Hampshire.

Swing voters (independents) see no reason to vote in the Republican primary so they come out in droves to put the exclamation mark on the Obama momentum. He is exactly the kind of candidate that can draw the crossover voters in the Granite State; HRC is exactly not that kind of candidate. (Recall that Al Gore wasn't the Big Winner in 2000, he and the Democrat machine pols were saved by John McCain, who sucked up all the oxygen out of the independent vote).

Barring a stumble by Obama between now and Christmas Eve, he walks into South Carolina with a 2-0 lead. and Big MO, as well as Big O, on his side.

Concerning Sen. Clinton's 'electability', the prognosticators keep overlooking one key fact. In order win next year, the Democratic nominee has to do something that Bill Clinton never did: win a majority of the popular vote. Not only that, the electoral college is now more strongly weighted towards the red states than it was when Bill Clinton ran.

So the real question is this: how likely is it that Hillary Clinton can achieve something next year that her husband, the greatest politician of our time, never could? Just asking the question, answers it. The electoral college is now so strongly skewed towards the red states -- where winner take all statutes are nearly everywhere in place -- that the only way for a Democrat to win against a credible Republican nominee is if the Democratic nominee is from, or is guaranteed to carry, one or more of the red states. That candidate is not Sen. Clinton.

Electability matters. If Obama is the nominee, we will have a new president named McCain or Huckabee. Obama cannot win a single southern or border state or any Rocky Mountain state. Hillry can win Arkansas, Missouri, and possibly Kentucky, Virginia, and Florida. Hillary is the only Democrat who can win in 2008.

Oh yeah, Hillary is the only Dem who can win. Then why are all three frontrunners trouncing GOP candidates in horse race polls? Let's vote for the person with the best leadership qualities and ideas rather than bs arguments like electability.

If electability is the issue then Obama has the perfect comeback; " Well it looks like I can beat you!"

What can she say to this? That the Republicans are tougher than her? I don't think so.

I agree with David. Obama is running on the same empty crap about uniting people that Bush did. Look where that got us.

People need to wake up and realize that if Obama gets to the White House, all the forces working in their own interest isn't automatically going to go with whatever *fresh* ideas he wants to implement.

We will see that he is a politician like any other and will have to work with, not against, the system to get anything done. It'll just take him couple of years to not get anything done before getting everyone pissed off and against him.

Look at Deval Patrick. Anothre dude with no experience who ran on new-kind-of-politician crap. He hasn't done jack for his state.

She is shrill, opportunistic and will govern based on the polls. Moreover, she cannot possibly bring this country together at a time of great need. She seems to think that she deserves it but is not a a leader of the free world by any stretch. Obama will supplement his experience and judgement with Richardson, Biden or Dodd as his VP and take it home. She is simply unelectable and unlikeable.

I will tell you why I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

I don't like her.

And I should not have to vote for anyone I dont like.

You didn't mention the trope that Hillary's New Hampshire campaign manager tried out today, then apologized for: Obama can't be elected because the evil Republicans will exploit his admitted cocaine use, and, BTW, did he ever sell it? Expect rumors that the Clinton campaign is sitting on information that could destroy Obama, which they're too high-minded to use, but the Republicans aren't.

I don't understand how anyone could possibly support Hillary. If voters really wanted experience, they'd be voting Biden or Dodd, two of the most well respected and accomplished politicians around. Hillary can't even compare. As for changing anything, she's been nothing but a bit player in her time as a senator.

Additionally, she is, by far, the most divisive political figure running, even more so than Tancredo for the Republicans. Obama is able to get support from the right, despite being solidly on the left. These same people who would support Obama would fight tooth and claw for the Republicans to keep Hillary out. Republicans may seem divided now, but put them against Hillary and the full political machinery will be brought to bear. I can't see this happening with Obama. And forget about the electability. Even if she wins, Hillary would face constant opposition. There would be no way she could accomplish anything, let alone make it past 4 years. If you want someone to unify the country, it's not Hillary.

That Hillary’s camp is in trouble is understatement. What with the fiasco this past Saturday, dragging her 88 year old mother through the killer storms to stump for her?

Yesterday she had Billy sub for her in NH. a better treat for the audience, but a definite sign on weakness from her.

Their going after Obama's admission for experimenting with drugs, after the previous attacks on his kindergarten essay fell through is not only another shot in the dark, but might open sour memories that they have worked hard to bury.

Hillary is knee deep in quicksand and every move she makes to untangle herself only sucks her deeper into the ground.

The truth of the matter is that people finally caught up with her lies.

http://www.capitolpoliticking.com

Anyone who cites HRC's Children's Asthma Initiative as an example of her "experience" should also provide some truth in advertising: This was a politically attractive program that has brought relatively little benefit to children with asthma. I was at the CDC meetings about the initiative and left in disgust. But then, it brought lots of free media coverage and approval from a naive public. So exactly what are HRC's real accomplishments?


"I'm not racist, but I won't vote for a black man because other people are." Right... I guess, if that's the line that keeps you conscience happy.

I agree with the person who said that anyone who questions Hillary's experience and competence is politically ignorant.

People who say that Obama is more electable than Clinton are fools as well.

The national polls between Republicans and Democrats don't matter right now. That is not an indicator of electability. Who ever wins the presidency will do so by winning a minimum of 270 electoral votes. That means that the real indicator of who is electable and who isn't is based on who is doing well in key states such as Ohio, Penn, Florida. Clinton not only beats her Republican contenders in these states but is FAR AHEAD OF OBAMA. Keep in mind that some of these states Kerry lost by somewhat large margins.

Obama is an easier target by far. He has poor experience (and that is FACT; I don't care how you people spin it), has accomplished very little, and his past IS GOING TO HAUNT HIM. He has flipped-flopped on so many issues from his past to what he now presents its not even funny. People are so enamored with him because he is new. But that is a dangerous logic to follow because we don't really know who he is and his negatives (and trust me, there's a lot to work with) are yet to be seem in the national area. In order words, Obama has had a pass in the media and that may be good for him now, but if he is nominated, all his unknowns will be publicly displayed. And trust me, they will be great ammo for the Republicans.

If he makes it to the general election, Obama can convince the american public that he is a likeable, trustworthy person. Hillary can't. There you go.