Clinton Memo: Why We're Best Positioned To Take On McCain

Read it and tell me -- do you think Clinton or Obama would be a better candidate against JSM?

To: Interested Parties

From: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist

Date: Saturday, February 2, 2008

Re: Hillary is the Democrat to Beat McCain

If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats. She is the hands-on leader that America needs as we slip into a worsening economic crisis. Her ability to be both a strong commander-in-chief and steward of the economy are what make her the favorite against Sen. McCain.

Sen. Obama has been telling voters that he is the one to beat Sen. McCain because he gave a speech against the war in 2002 and because he is currently attracting independent voters. But those arguments don’t hold up to current polling, to history or to what is likely to happen in a general election.

First, there is no support to Sen. Obama’s assertion that his 2002 speech makes him a stronger choice in a general election. Recent history shows that voters look to who they believe can end a war and protect us against future wars. No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war. In fact, Hillary is backed by prominent anti-war leaders because they believe she is uniquely able to end the war responsibly.

Based on recent polls, there is nothing to support Sen. Obama's arguments about his prospective performance against Sen. McCain – both Sen. Obama and Hillary start off within the margin of error against Sen. McCain.Yesterday's Fox poll showed both in a statistical tie with Sen. McCain And Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Sen. Obama because he is – by his own admission - not as well known.

Sen. Obama’s support among independents comes from Democratic-leaning independents, voters who are likely to back the eventual Democratic nominee. He has no overall advantage in the polls against Sen. McCain. But such voters have very little information about Sen. Obama. And once the Republican machine begins to methodically attack him, he will lose independent support.

So in a head to head against Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama has no advantage with swing voters.
The 2004 election was determined by two key groups – women concerned about security and Latinos – and against Sen. McCain those groups could again prove decisive. President Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004 and Sen. McCain, unlike other Republicans, has been supportive of immigration reform. These are two groups that enthusiastically support Hillary.

As voters look to the future, they will be looking at who can put the country on the right path and who can defend it against future threats. While Hillary is seen as strong on defense and has served on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Obama has no record on these national security issues that would again be front and center.

So if Sen. McCain is the nominee, Hillary is the one well-positioned to beat him. Already well vetted, she is ready to stand up to Sen. McCain on national security and put together a winning coalition of voters that will take back the White House.

Comments

Cute spin, wishful thinking. Obama is a stronger candidate than Clinton, his crossover appeal to (some) Republicans is well-documented.

Posted by bbartlog | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, and, you'll be shocked to know, I don't find Penn's memo at all persuasive.

In addition, I think one important point that is overlooked in the whole electability argument is the dynasty issue.

There have been Bushes or Clintons in the White House since 1988, the entire voting life of anyone under 40. The Obama campaign implicitly hits on this with the "change" theme, but they have been careful not to be too explicit about it, because lumping the Clintons together with the Bushes is dangerous in a Democratic primary.

But you can bet in the general election you will hear a LOT more about it. As a member of the younger generation, I find it very disturbing that Bush inherited the Presidency from his father, and I find it equally disturbing that Clinton is basically trying to inherit the Presidency from her husband. Give someone else a chance!

Posted by dart | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

Actually the FOX poll had Obama ahead by 1 and Clinton down by 1 point against McCain. It's still within the margin of error....

Also, one could argue that the 2004 election hinged on the fact that despite large democratic margins in cities, republicans overwhelmingly carried rural America. Obama has done much better than Clinton in these areas in the primaries so far and is poised to win the largely rural states on Tuesday.

Posted by yeah... | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

He may be right, but I wonder how many other erstwhile Democratic voters there are who will vote for McCain over Senator Clinton without a second thought. Nothing about the way she's run her campaign -- the people she's chosen, the strategy and persona of the week, the dishonest attacks she's made on her opponents, the multiple efforts to game the system (I live in Michigan), the tendency to trim her views to the prevailing winds -- make me think she'd be anything but a disaster as President. Hopefully, we'll never find out.

Posted by Kevin Miller | February 2, 2008 3:24 PM

First of all there is no gaurantee that it will be McCain. I don't think it is better than an 50/50 chance at the moment. Secondly, Hillary is by far the best candidate to oppose any Republican nominee. Obama got caught in ANOTHER OUTRIGHT LIE today by the N.Y. Times regarding a nuclear power protection bill HE ALLEGEDLY PASSED.
They also pointed out the both he and Adoph Hitler Axelrod are on the hook big time to nuclear power interests.

It is borderline corruption not far removed from Obama's long time relationship with the Chicago Arab Political Terror Cell which includes Antoin Rezko, Ali Ata, Abdulmuhamid Chaim, Milorad Blagejovich, and a corrupt Iraqi billionaire.

Combine that with the war crime activities of his freind, cousin, and confidante, Raila Odinga in Kenya, along with the Black Supremist views of his longtime mentor Jeremiah Wright Jr, and his freind Nation of Islam leader Louis (X) Farrakhan, and the Republicans will eat him alive.

Obama doesn't think well in his feet without a script and a teleprompter, and whichever Rep nominee emerges will "take him to school" in any debate.

Thanks to the former mayor of Vermont, Howdy Doody Dean, the DNC is broke, two major states have had their voters alienated, and Democratic voters are declining nation wide in comparison to Republicans. Hillary is the only one who gives the Dems a tinker's chance in the G.E.

Posted by robert ethan | February 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Based on polling, that memo is not persuasive.

Posted by dave | February 2, 2008 3:34 PM

I will apologize if this doesn't move all of you!

http://www.dipdive.com/

Posted by Reinaldo Hereford | February 2, 2008 3:35 PM

Her arguement for experience goes up in smoke against McCain. At the same time she can't argue change for either. She will be hard-pressed to argue against the Iraq War again Sen. McCain, with her vote on record and minimal foreign policy success (good will missions don't count). Middle of the road democrats/independennts don't fear McCain and might be willing to vote republican over Mrs. Clinton, as she is not respected by a large number of people. The Democrats are in danger of screwing up another election. Can we do better? Yes We Can.

Posted by LatinaForObama | February 2, 2008 3:35 PM

I will apologize if this doesn't move all of you!

http://www.dipdive.com/

Posted by Reinaldo Hereford | February 2, 2008 3:35 PM

C'mon!! This is Mark Penn we are reading. He has as much credibility as if Dumbya Bush was handicapping the race. Obviously Obama is the better general election candidate (for many reasons but the first and quite compelling reason IS the conservative support he has received, via endorsements or "kind words." Hillary has not. Not to say Obama is going to win because the Democratic party has a history of shooting itself in the foot but on any objective criteria, Obama is clearly the more formidable general election candidate.

Posted by carlos | February 2, 2008 3:39 PM

She is the John Kerry of 2008 and that memo proves it.

The fact is the only way the democratic party can win on Iraq is by drawing clear and distinct contrasts between the candidates: HRC can not do this. She will be painted a flip-flopper. She will be painted as indecisive on the war. She will be made to look weak.

And the last debate showed why, clearly. She has no good answer to her Iraq war vote.

Obama has a strong economic plan that favors the middle class, he has proven he can attract independents. Something the HRC campaign has illustrated just now in this memo. HRC can not.

If it is Clinton v. McCain: McCain will win.

Posted by Rhoda | February 2, 2008 3:39 PM

C'mon!! This is Mark Penn we are reading. He has as much credibility as if Dumbya Bush was handicapping the race. Obviously Obama is the better general election candidate (for many reasons but the first and quite compelling reason IS the conservative support he has received, via endorsements or "kind words." Hillary has not. Not to say Obama is going to win because the Democratic party has a history of shooting itself in the foot but on any objective criteria, Obama is clearly the more formidable general election candidate.

Posted by carlos | February 2, 2008 3:40 PM

McCain would slap Billary's 35 year crap in to the trash. Secondly she would lose Indy's to McCain... Sorry Billary they just don't like you...

Posted by Ann | February 2, 2008 3:41 PM

McCain would slap Billary's 35 year crap in to the trash. Secondly she would lose Indy's to McCain... Sorry Billary they just don't like you...

Posted by Ann | February 2, 2008 3:42 PM

I actually agree with the memo from Penn. I think on the 'other side' of a Primary, Hillary is the stronger candidate. Voters haven't seen (yet) how strong Obama would be against the GOP. Clinton is tested. Obama has already been named THE most liberal US Senator and the GOP will paint him as THE most inexperienced candidate EVER. I think he'd make a great VP, but I fear that if he is the nominee, we can kiss the white house goodbye in 08.

Posted by D.Campbell | February 2, 2008 3:45 PM

Her experience argument -- in so far as she has one -- does go absolutely nowhere against McCain. So her most obvious (only?) advantage in a Democratic primary evaporates instantly.

Penn is kidding himself, or ignoring his exits and all sorts of ancedotal evidence, if he thinks that every independent willing to turnout to vote for Obama will do the same for Hillary Clinton. He's wrong. There are people who turned out in Iowa, for example, who powered Obama to a victory that Clinton could not dream of tapping no matter how many new sliced and diced voter subsects Penn creates.

He probably has a point that no poll shows either candidate with breathing space from McCain ... but I think this speaks to McCain's potency more so than it speaks to a weakness in Obama. (He selectively ignores that Obama outpolls him slightly with McCain ... and brings up the number of undecides, but that's to be expected.)

There's also more of this insidious "Obama has not been vetted" theme implied here ... and while they may be true (today's nuclear article in the NY Times is interesting, if not very damning) it's a joke to say that the Clintons have been fully vetted. The Borat-gate highlighted in this week's New York Times is the tip of the iceberg and, more so than today's Obama piece, speaks to a real problem that will exist if the Clintons are in office again. Bill is free to buck-rake all he wants, but if he did this kind of stuff while his wife was president it would undoubtedly mess up foreign policy more often than not.

Anyway ... Penn and Plouffe both obfuscate in memos; there's perhaps slightly less to believe in this one than others.

Posted by Flip | February 2, 2008 3:52 PM

Hillary is the best candidate to beat McCain and be one of the best president's this country has had in a very long time.

Posted by Carl | February 2, 2008 3:54 PM

Hmmmm, Mark Penn speaks with conviction, at least until tomorrow when there will be other polls disproving what he's spinning and he'll pivot instantaneously into a new tack. This smarmy, sweaty embodiment of everything that's wrong with politics in 2008 has no more credibility about this race than Cheney has about Iraq. I need a shower after reading anything he writes.

Posted by TrueBlue | February 2, 2008 3:55 PM

To: Robert Ethan

The American public is sick and tired of the stuff that your post is full of, which is why Clinton wouldn't have a prayer against McCain.

Posted by TheUnknownStuntman | February 2, 2008 4:04 PM

I find it amazing that her main argument for defeating any Republican is that she has been "vetted". Just yesterday there were two breaking stories regarding her passive approach to labor unions when she was at WalMart and her and her husbands undermining of government policies with the mining deal in Kazhakstan (Yes...I do hold her accountable for that also).

In addition, there are still thousands of papers Bill has kept guarded that I am sure the Republicans will out. Who knows what is in them, but its enough to challenge her claim that she is vetted.

My biggest indication of who will beat the Republicans come from the Republicans themselves...they fear Obama most.

Posted by Ron Roley | February 2, 2008 4:06 PM

Sorry about the earlier post. There's a sweaty little troll who steals my name sometimes and posts the most unbelievable steaming pigshit. Just ignore him/her/it please.

Posted by robert ethan | February 2, 2008 4:06 PM

He's *got* to be kidding:

- Obama has by *far* the greatest appeal to Independents and even Republicans
- Hillary will not only fail to win the vote of Independents/Republicans, she will also lose the vote of many Democrats. Like me. I'm a lifelong democrat, but if the choice is Hillary or McCain, I will vote for McCain.
- Her supposed strengths that he lists above are not so, and they play right into McCains actual strengths. Hillary better prepared to be commander in chief than McCain? No. Pure and simple: No.

In summary, I think that far from being the candidate best suited to beat McCain, Hillary is the only candidate who would lose this historic opportunity for Democrats to take back the White House.

And it would be a good thing, too.

Posted by Eduardo | February 2, 2008 4:09 PM

The real question with Hillary is why she repulses so many principled and intelligent Democrats. I can't see how she would appeal to any Republican. Added to that the prospect of Bill defiling the White House again, and I can't imagine a worse or less credible candidate.

Posted by zilifant | February 2, 2008 4:09 PM

As someone who has been very active in lots of presidential campaigns, I can't imagine myself working at all for HRC's election. And I think that turnout and effort from Dem base voters would be down if she were the nominee.

Posted by Sue | February 2, 2008 4:16 PM

Not sure--saw Penn's name in the memo, threw up a bit in my mouth, and decided not to read it.

Posted by JEM | February 2, 2008 4:17 PM

The Republicans have always wanted Hillary Clinton to win the nomination because she carries immense liabilities (righfully so or not) -- including her husband as has become increasingly evident. I think the memo understates these liablities.

Posted by Eric | February 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Obama is very inspirational. He is a motivational speaker. He has very good writers. But there are no specifics when he talks.

The republicans will eat him alive! He has trouble defending his record when he is questioned. Hillary has the best chance to defeat the republicans.

With the dynasty question, how come Americans are now bringing that question up? Where were you when Bush stole the election in 2000 and when the American poeple re-elected him in 2004. It is funny Americans had no problem with the the Bush dynasty but are all of a sudden opposed to a Clinton dynasty. Ask yourself...Are you better off now or back when the first clinton was president? If Barack wins, he will be eaten alive by the republicans.

We need a Clinton/Obama ticket and the dems control for 16 years.

Posted by Jinglesnbells | February 2, 2008 4:34 PM

I don't understand why Hillary Clinton is bragging about 35 years experience. During the last debate she outlined that experience and I waited to hear something that was relative to being the president of the US. I heard a lot of social work with children. Maybe she's trying to hint that during her husband's tenure, she was actually the one making the decisions for him.
Also, how can she possibly think that she is the best person to go up against McCain with all of the baggage she and her husband are carrying from his tenure in the White House (including Monica),-- not to mention the lies and flip-flops she has done on her positions and the poor judgement in supporting the war. She has yet to admit any wrong. This behavior is similar to what we are dealing with presently with Bush. How can one trust a highly ambitious person who will sell her soul for a vote? McCain will eat her alive!

Posted by Annette Nunnally | February 2, 2008 4:47 PM

when you're in a crisis, and america IS really in a crisis now, you don't pick someone who just gives hope. i'd pick someone who can do the job. that would be clinton or mccain. like it or not, obama's candidacy is a fairy tale. mccain would simply say to him "what have you done?" and no independent voter would waste his vote on just hoping.

Posted by nonoy | February 2, 2008 4:49 PM

Obviously the Republicans base isn't too excited about McCain in the White House. But, if Hillary is the nominee that will certainly change. You can also feel the excitement in the Democratic Party because of the Obama campaign. If he is nominated the turnout should be huge. There are many, many people that will be very disappointed if Hillary wins and turnout will be affected.

I think the electability issue is obvious to anyone with an open mind. I'm sure its possible that Hillary could beat McCain, but it would almost certainly be another nail-biter, so why take the chance?

Posted by Ron | February 2, 2008 4:50 PM

More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill , Obama camp supporter and financial contributor to Presidential candidate Barrack Obama who desperately wants campaign cash from another, criminal or not, Again Obama camp has its hands full with other publically indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received donations in June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday…Of Couse, did axelrod loose his voice?
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR LATINIOS!
**Ms. Obama, vice-president at the Univ Chicago Hosp, a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 5.4 times as much for drugs isn’t enough cold hearted corp experience. Plus she caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs she said to be more efficient. 05, she was elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, for that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, Colo. plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic, big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. Companies that pay top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while squeezing the little guys off the production line destroying middle-class America. Also raises the question not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama's own values. Specifically, while Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of Chicago company that pays executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? The companys No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

In 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, Elected to BOD in June 6 Michelle Obama, receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama's Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock

Posted by More corrupt camp donations for Obama | February 2, 2008 4:54 PM

Obama criticized again for going negative and misleading on Clinton
Does Sen. Obama think that using divisive GOP tactics is the way to bring the country together? Len Nichols of the New America Foundation said he is "personally outraged at Obama camps recent mailer attacking Clinton! Obama trying to stop health care for everyone! Once again He‘s caught in lies from the debate. Obama showed vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory SC. The first part of his victory speech was deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism. Clinton pointed out, it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it. It was Obama who introduced King into the debate. Hillarys words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Obama's people was briefing the media to create this impression. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote. It's a tragedy for Obama and entirely his own fault that this has happened. he became "the black candidate
Obama's most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama's calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It's a pity. He promised so much.

Posted by Sherri | February 2, 2008 4:56 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

Barack Obama and his fellow state senators considered more than 175 pieces of legislation on a frenetic day in March. Of those measures, Obama voted "present" 31 times! did not show up to vote in the senate often in his short time there, missed 130 votes! will not answer any reporter on how we would voted at the time. But his record after fact shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!Which if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace (Obama "backed off" this position after being pummeled by environmentalists for several months, but still voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions)Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions says peopel who dont have health care dont want it??? He has no clue whats goign on? VOTE FOR CLINTON

Posted by CLINTON 2008 | February 2, 2008 4:58 PM

There seems to be a certain "quality" to comments from Clinton supporters. Kind of a desperate, mean-spirited, Tanya Harding sort of quality.

Posted by Ron | February 2, 2008 5:00 PM

Well this is a nice fairly tail by Mr & Mrs Whitewater.

The Clintons raised $500 million for his library from all the criminals he pardoned on his way out of the white house. Maybe if she is elected she will return the White House Silver she stole.

Posted by Todd | February 2, 2008 5:03 PM

Keep Getting the Truth out about the Real Obama
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Advertisment
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday Hillary Clinton with an eight point lead in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s now Clinton 45%, Obama 37%.

Posted by ColonelRay | February 2, 2008 5:04 PM

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush ....

Cleaning up what? Cleaning up Monica Lewinsky, or cleaning up the messed war HRC authorized? If there is anything to clean up, it is more of the former than the later! There may even be another Monica to clean out this round. Give me a break: What a joke to defend a very inconsiderate, insensitive, hawkish dynastic ambition? Perhaps, Chelsea will later clean up after another a Bush daughter. And the cleaning up continues for God knows how long. Clintons or Bushes are not the only qualified people in America. Why shouldn't they show some understanding.

These issues will resurface in the general election. The GOP is waiting and hoping for DEM's free gift of HRC.

Posted by Jan | February 2, 2008 5:05 PM

What did we expect him to say? As an independent, I view this as nothing more than Clinton spin, say anything, do anything to win. The new "American way" established by too many years of Bush/Clinton soapbox drivel. And Americans are too lazy to dig for the real truth for themselves, and we do so at our own peril.

Posted by Robert Ball | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Wonderful spin by the Hillary Camp.
Does the camp forget about whitewater?
Does the camp forget Monica scandle?
Does the camp forget she voted for the authorization of the Irag war?
This is just some of the thing the camp has forgot about.

Posted by KEVIN NOVAK | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Barrack Hussein Obama. This man born into a muslim family, who now says it took him 25 years to become a christian, a man admitted to heavy drug use, a man related and who currently supports radical muslims like Odinaga or muslim criminals like Rezcko, a man not even raised in the United States, a man who supports killing babies, a man who supports treating women as second class citizens, a man who attends a racist church that despises all other races but black and supports a radical black muslim who has spouted hatred for 25 years, a man who cannot make his mind up on how to vote until he wets his finger and puts it in the air to see how the wind is blowing, a man who has never managed a business, never served in the military, frankly never even had a real job, a man who took money from a slumlord while poor blacks froze in the winter without any heat, a man who finally admitted last week that he is half-white while standing in Kansas of course, a man who supports gun owners rights while standing in front of crowd in Idaho, a man who says he supports drivers licenses for illegal aliens while standing in California, a man who supports legalizing marijuana while talking to groups like move-on.org, a man who can make comments about black men need to know how to dance and get away with it, a man who says he will even learn Spanish. But in reality a man who dishonors his father, his mother, his heritage, and who does not have the guts or the honor to wear a flag on his lapel while we are at war........This man, not a good patriot, not a good son, not a good person, not a good man.

Posted by ColonelRay | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Maybe someone can help me out here.

I keep hearing that Obama's opposition to the war is a "plus." Even though I agree with his position, I've always viewed it as a minus for the general election - because the Republicans are particularly good at defeating Democratic candidates by calling them pacifists.

Hillary's position is that she was ready to whip Saddam, but that Bush misled her. I think that plays better against the Republican scare tactics than Obama's consistent position.

Personally I think that Obama and Clinton are interchangable. They are both corporate dems, with the same "moderate" positions, and Clinton's baggage and gender will weigh her down as much as Obama's race. I don't get the Hillary/Bill bashing that has been out there in the media, and now has taken hold of many Obama supporters. I think the anti-Hillary bias is preventing Obama from being properly vetted by the primary process. Penn is right when he says that Obama's negatives are as high as they will be eventually - the longer a candidate is out being vetted and attacked, the higher they will go. Hillary's are perhaps high as they will ever be.

Posted by Christine | February 2, 2008 5:08 PM

"No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war."

Excuse me? The president is not the only person in a position of power. She had a resolution in front of her in the Senate. She was and is one of the leaders of the Democratic party, well positioned to insist on a REAL debate over this thing. That's what the senate does. Oh wait, she was trying to appear tough like the rest of the Democrats because they were afraid the country went bonkers over September 11th. Understandable, but Obama had no reservations speaking out against the war. He even won a US Senate seat shortly after risking attack on his patriotism.
This is not the only capitulation from Hillary, her husband, or Democrats. Actions should have consequences, shouldn't they?

A side note: At this point, I'm not sure what would unify the Republicans more -- Hillary Clinton, or Mark Penn's body of press release creative writing.

Posted by comatose | February 2, 2008 5:11 PM

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush ....

Cleaning up what? Cleaning up Monica Lewinsky, or cleaning up the messed war HRC authorized? If there is anything to clean up, it is more of the former than the later! There may even be another Monica to clean out this round. Give me a break: What a joke to defend a very inconsiderate, insensitive, hawkish dynastic ambition? Perhaps, Chelsea will later clean up after another a Bush daughter. And the cleaning up continues for God knows how long. Clintons or Bushes are not the only qualified people in America. Why shouldn't they show some understanding.

These issues will resurface in the general election. The GOP is waiting and hoping for DEM's free gift of HRC.

Posted by Jan | February 2, 2008 5:13 PM

We dont need to go back to the 90s
the future is now

Obama is now

Clinton is the past with a wonderful spin team.
they follow the obama camp lead

first obama from the start is talking change.
then she jumps all over it and starts using it.

Then obame says yes we can, now I just see on tv her supporters and her chanting yes we can.

does she ever thing of anything original or does see jump on what is working.

Jump off Obama and stop running off you husbands name.
go Obama.

Posted by Obama supporter | February 2, 2008 5:14 PM

So everyone think McCain is the one to beat? When everyone starts telling the truth about him and what a truly nasty person he is they'll think twice. To those who want to make so much of Clinton's affair, pay attention to McCain's past. Check it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
A few highlights of his wonderful life:
He finished near the bottom of his graduating class in 1958, he was fifth from the bottom in class rank

He was a major player in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s

Regarding his first marriage: McCain had extramarital affairs, and he would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." His wife Carol would later echo those sentiments, saying "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else.

During that time his wife was undergoing multiple surgeries due to an automobile accident.

The man also has a quick and and nasty temper and is way too old for the job. He should retire gracefully before he is completley exposed.

Posted by Shirley | February 2, 2008 5:14 PM

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush ....

Cleaning up what? Cleaning up Alberto Gonzalez, or cleaning up the messed Iraq war? If there is anything to clean up, it is even more of the latter! There may even be another Scooter Libby to clean out this round. Give me a break: What a reality to defend a very considerate, sensitive, magnanimous ambition? We hope perhaps, Chelsea will later clean up after another a Bush daughter. And the cleaning up continues for God knows how long Bushes and the like are around. Clintons or Bushes are not the only qualified people in America. Why shouldn't they show some understanding.

These issues will resurface in the general election. The DEM is waiting and hoping for GOP's free gift of JMcC.

Posted by Janice D | February 2, 2008 5:18 PM

Lets see...the republican attack machine will go after Obama and leave HRC alone. I guess because all the dirt to be had has been had. I think he calls it "vetted".

Right Mark. I've got a load for you from the non-feeding end of a horse.

With HRC they have both Hillary AND Bill to go after.

Posted by Brian | February 2, 2008 5:18 PM

Sherri,

Len Nichols? Isn't that the guy who said the picture of a couple at their kitchen table was just like the Nazis marching in Skokie? And how was the mailer a "smear?" Because the truth is equal to mud for Hillary?

Sorry, couldn't get through the rest of your screed. If you're that willing to distort a truthful mailer, then you lose credibility for anything else you have to say.

Posted by texasdem | February 2, 2008 5:21 PM

The next president must be ready on Day 1 to restore the nation and its people. It will be a long slog. The next president must be up to it.

Obama is whistling an optimistic tune, though so far, when compared to his main rivals, it has the substance and specifics of a chewing gum ad jingle.

Since joining the Senate in 2001, she displayed a knack for getting things done across party lines, just the opposite of what her critics expected.

Since joining the Senate in 2001, she displayed a knack for getting things done across party lines, just the opposite of what her critics expected.

The country would be well served if her plans for tax fairness and universal health care were accomplished in the same competent manner.

Hillary Clinton is a lightning rod. Polls show that she polarizes a segment of the country. Anyone who witnessed Bill Clinton's two terms in office doesn't need a poll to understand that the first lady came under a well-funded and generally unfair assault by smear artists who knew which buttons to push on her natural enemies, often conservative white males. Courtesy- Anniston Star

Lightening rods make changes while chewing jingle only makes mess on your shoes.

Hilary 2008

Posted by DR | February 2, 2008 5:22 PM

i would vote McCain if obama gets nomination so its a 2 way street Obama fans say the same thing about Hillary so that argument is bogus

Posted by jeff | February 2, 2008 5:25 PM

I'll be voting for Senator Hillary R. Clinton in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Connecticut. I'm voting for her because I'm a proud McCain Democrat and know that Hurricane McCain can beat her like a drum in November!

Posted by MVD | February 2, 2008 5:34 PM

Oh, bother...this is just spin and wishful thinking. Talk about a 'fairy tale!'

I love the line about how HRC's negatives are already factored in as a good thing--nothing like admitting your candidate has a big group of people that can't stand her and won't vote for her under any circumstances. The idea that Obama's negatives will somehow surface later is preposterous; everywhere he campaigns his likability just goes up and up and up. And finally, as others have already articulated, Obama has much, much more cross-over appeal. He will pull Independents and disfranchised Republicans.

HRC's team is planning for a repeat of the elections of 2000 and 2004, albeit with a narrow Dem win this time. Is that any way to lead the country through needed change? It is not. The new president will need a bigger mandate, a bigger general victory. And Obama is the only one who can do it, period.

Posted by jcfinsf | February 2, 2008 5:35 PM

The arguement about Obama bring out more voters in general election is one-sided.

Young people are coming out to vote. But they are not all voting for Obama. Some of them are not even voting for any democratic candidates. How certain are we that they will all come out to vote for Obama in general election after the Republican attack machine complete its job on Obama?

Minority are not all for Obama either. I know from first hand experience that Hillary is well liked in Asian & Hispanic communities.

I am a registered Republican woman. I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. If Obama wins, I will vote for the Republican nominee. And I know there are a lot of women like me. Whatever you want to label me, I am proud of Hillary's talent and achievements. I want her to be my president.

The assumption that only Obama will get more votes in general election may not be correct. Hillary has advantages, too.

Posted by tt88 | February 2, 2008 5:36 PM

Hilary or Obama would easily beat any Republican put up. Can you imagine a Presidential race in 2008 where two candidates voted for George Bush two times and two didn't. Wow! Bushes rating at 30% and 70% are thinking he is a great example "of not being able to polish a turd"...blossom. almost 78% of the people think that the "Iraq Invasion" was a mistake and the republicans are wanting it to be extended!!!
A current Republican President that is responsible for killing and relocating more Iraq's than Sadam!! Wow! And we are even wondering who could beat any Elephant nominated. Get serious.

Posted by mike temple | February 2, 2008 5:38 PM

This memo is so delusional, that it is hard for me to believe that anyone but a comedy writer would issue it.

A relatively unknown politician has come out of almost nowhere to challenge Hillary and might even beat her outright on Tuesday and we are supposed to believe that she will have the best chance to beat McCain. You can't make this stuff up.

The only way the Democrats can possibly lose the election is if they nominate Hillary. She will draw republicans to the polls in droves, drive independents to McCain as a caretaker president and deny them the chance to pry states in the midwest and the south from the the Republican camp and Mark Penn comes out with something as insipid as this memo. The very tone of it is something written by a loser.

But then again, maybe the Democrats will nominate her, they have always had a suicidal bent.

Posted by TOC | February 2, 2008 5:41 PM

If the Clintons tried to pull the race card against blacks who stood with them in the midst of the scandal that would have put an end to the Clinton presidency just to win, how much more will they play dirty if a Latino were to be their rival candidate. Very mean, and thankless!

HRC touts 35 years as her years of experience. She will not stand McCain in this parlance. At least Obama can more readily claim youthfulness against antiquity, new and the future against the past, Washington octogenarian against a Washington rookie, for Iraq war and against it, etc. HRC cannot win on change because of relying on Bill who cannot represent change. Remember HRC, negative rating – polarizing, triangulating, etc.

Posted by Jan | February 2, 2008 5:44 PM

I hadn't thought about the Latino factor very much, assuming they'd go heavily for the Democratic nominee. This group is likely to be key swing vote in November, but McCain (Senator McAmnesty, as his right wing opponents are wont to call him) is extremely well positioned to fight for the votes of Latinos. We need a candidate who is extremely popular with this burgeoning group of voters. That candidate's name is Hillary Clinton. Hillary is utterly dominating the Latino vote so far against Barack Obama, as the results in both Nevada and Florida demonstrate.

Posted by Jasper | February 2, 2008 5:45 PM

HILLARY WILL GO DOWN AS THE BEST PRESDENT THAT AMERICA AS EVER HAD! YOU WILL KNOW SOON !

Posted by H. Clark | February 2, 2008 5:46 PM

That's the best monoloque i've read in a long time.Clinton's waffling back and forth on every major issue in the race assures me that no Democrat will be sitting in the highest office in the land.I quit voting Democrat a long time ago and am proud of it!

Posted by dick | February 2, 2008 5:49 PM

I will apologize if this doesn't move all of you!

http://www.dipdive.com/

_______________________________________________

It moved me. Great piece of work and this is from a guy over 60.

Posted by TOC | February 2, 2008 5:49 PM

I want Obama to win against McCain.

But i can't hide my nervousness that the racist crap spewed above, by Robert Ethan and several others onwards, will in the end prove more weighty than anti-Clinton sentiment, and will propel McCain as the victor should there be a McCain-Obama contest.

I want to be wrong and not cynical. And I certainly plan on voting for Obama. I just hope that I can trust my fellow patriots to shelve their base animalistic unwarranted prejudices in their decision making and be human and be American and be just in their choice.

Posted by Caroline | February 2, 2008 5:50 PM

I am an Independent. I will vote for Obama. I will not vote for the Clintons. There are many out there just like me.

Obama would crush the general election, he is even picking up cross-over republicans and he is going to trounce Hillary in the traditional red states (you know, those states the keep delivering the GOP). Do not underestimate how many people are tired of the Clintons. And do not underestimate Bill's post presidential adventures. The NY Times story the other day was disgusting - new and relevant meaning to the term filthy rich. What else has he done? I suspect those investigative reporters are just getting started. Truth doesn't mind the light, why have the Clintons have built up a Fort Knox of secrecy around his presidential papers, the Clinton library and the Clinton foundation? What are they hiding?

Hillary's strong suit is bitter partisan politics. I've had enough of it. That was her husband in the oval office with an intern, not a vast right wing conspiracy. There are fairy tales in this campaign. They are ones that democrats have held onto about Bill Clinton, is there no crime for which some of you will not forgive him? Looking back fondly on the Clinton presidency is like looking back fondly on the pre-industrial era . . . and forgetting details like the plague. It's time for change - and that ain't gonna come from Hillary no matter how many times she rewrites her slogan.

Posted by brooks of sheffield | February 2, 2008 5:52 PM

Hellooooo - REZKO goes on trial around Feb 25 - are all of the Obamabots living in cult-land; can't see the forest for the trees; can't scrutinize your leader? - this story has been bubbling under the surface (except for the Chicago Tribune) for months, but the General Election will see a lot of Rezko in the Republicans playbook against Obama.

Posted by bbln | February 2, 2008 5:54 PM

I believe that the Clintons' endless attacks on Obama are backfiring, in that they show that he is able to withstand attacks after all. HRC's campaign keeps saying Obama won't be able to stand up to Republican attacks; I have a hard time believing that the attacks from Republicans could be worse than what HRC's people are slinging at him.

So, that part of the argument is particularly ridiculous to me.

Posted by gruvepuppy | February 2, 2008 5:55 PM

It would seem to me that most of the debate about electability, although persuasive from both sides misses out on a few major points. These differences in the candidates strengths are not often mentioned, but I believe are worth examining.

1. Mr. Obama has not been under the intense scrutiny that a general election and a presidency provides. Uniter or not he will be the enemy of the republican party and therefore be THE target. This puts him at a clear disadvantage in the general election since every tidbit of information on him that is negative will be news to everyone and will be spun as such, whereas any negative stuff on the Clintons will be old news that will only be salacious to people who already are not planning on voting for her.

2. There is no such thing as a uniter in politics. Any talk of this is just a clever catchphrase. Even the most successful presidents as far as elections go (A. Ronald Reagan with greatest landslide in electoral history, and B. Franklin Roosevelt, the president who served the most terms in office) were not really uniters in reality. Al this talk of new this and new that is as old as the new testament.

3. As for ending the war the democrats both have an equal advantage against McCain since he is already on record as being okay with it dragging on for another 100 years. Clinton, however will have the advantage of being able to sway some of the people who are a little more rooted in political realities when it comes to the war being ended than Mr. Obama. Most likely the US involvement in Iraq will be somewhere in between McCain's 100 years and Obama's immediate withdrawal. That will likely be about 50 years. This is about how long we have remained in other countries that we have had military involvement in, such as Germany, Japan, Korea, and Cuba. All of these places also have permenant bases, which due to our desire to be able to maintain a stable source of oil in Iraq I believe that a base or two of ours might get to stick around over there. Senator Clinton's stance is more rooted in political realities than Mr. Obama's pledge which will likely end up being similar to Bush Senior's "No New Taxes" campaign promise.

4. Mr. McCain will promote himself as though his time in Vietnam makes him a foreign policy ace and will try to make his captain title seem like he was really a general in Vietnam, although, like all political or military dynasties, that job belonged to daddy McCain. Hillary Clinton is more able to not appear wishy washy and inexperienced compared to McCain. Maybe Obama can raise the likelihood of McCain's death as a reason for youth over age, but I hardly think any voters will buy that one. John McCain is not running against an incumbent and an independent like when they pulled the too old to elect crap with Bob Dole, so Obama will likely bee looked upon as an inexperienced person to steer this ship.

I can't wait to hear how nobody even addresses the points I make. Usually anyone who makes a point with examples is pushed aside by the I love Hillary versus the I love Obama crowd instead of having a real debate.

Posted by blake | February 2, 2008 6:00 PM

3 points

1)imagine if you will in four years time Laura Bush runs for President, after serving four years in the senate for Texas...how many of us would come out of the woodwork to vote against another Bush (a Bush, we in general don't have anything against) to make sure we don't have another Bush in office? Would her argument of experience go as far as Hillary's has with us?

2)Which one, Hillary or Obama, would bow out gracefully and which one would destroy the party to win the whitehouse?

3) Who has promised "yes WE can" and which one has Promised "yes I can"...

The choice should be easy.

Posted by Whoa Now | February 2, 2008 6:03 PM

I disagree with the original poster.

This is MORE of the SAME from Hillary's campaign staff. Obama is the better choice to beat McCain because he can win the swing/independent voter. Hillary is extremely polarizing, and we all know the republicans are better at that game.

On top of that, Obama motivates/inspires new voters and represents REAL CHANGE. Vote Obama!

Posted by Christian Townsdin | February 2, 2008 6:11 PM

REMEMBER THE PLAYBOOK WAS WRITTEN BY THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH JR. ON HOW TO BEAT McCAIN..HILLARY GOT THE PLAYS! (NEW ENGLAND PAT. VIDEO)

Posted by H. Clark | February 2, 2008 6:11 PM

I am an Independent. I will vote for Obama. I will not vote for the Clintons. There are many out there just like me.

There are also many "like you" who will vote for McCain in the general election, for McCain, too, has strong appeal for many independent voters.

That appeal will certainly strengthen as the GOP "educates" voters as to the "ultra liberal" nature of Obama's politics (pot legalization, amnesty for illegals, etc.). I agree with many of Obama's positions, for what it's worth, but I have no illusions some lunch pail swing voter in Ohio sees eye to eye with either of us on such things.

Moreover, when it comes to holding down the votes of Democrats, it is Hillary Clinton who is the stronger candidate, and that's why, even before the GOP machine begins to focus on Obama, she's performs just as well as he does against McCain, and probably better than Obama does against McCain once the inevitable GOP attacks are taken into consideration.

If allowing George W. Bush to hand off the keys to the White House to another Republican is something that terrifies you, the prudent choice is a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in your state's primary. With a little luck you'll still have the opportunity to vote for Obama as the vice presidential candidate in November.

Posted by Jasper | February 2, 2008 6:11 PM

I am an independent/swing voter. I tend to lean liberal.

Obama has voted "present" 130 times rather than make a decision. I don't feel comfortable with a president who needs Dr. Phil to hold his hand when decisions come along. He needs to work thru his aversion and fear of making decisions BEFORE he becomes president of the U.S.

Obama has said he's a uniter, not a divider -- those are scary words considering who made that statement/promise previously.

Obama says he doesn't know that much about governing, but he will surround himself with people who do. Come on people, I thought y'all wanted change! Dubya said he would do that and he did. Look where we are now. Do we want another Dubya in a different color or do we truly want change? Someone who can get the job done and get busy on it immediately because Dubya has screwed up so many things it's going to be a long time getting them sorted out again.

Obama might make a fine president after he's had a little more experience, but right now, I'd feel more confident in Hillary, whom according to a recent Newsweek article played a very big part in the last Clinton Presidency, during which our economy was way better than it's been since they left office, and during which we were not at war.

If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for whomever the Republicans run. Ideally, John McCain, but any Republican gets my vote over Obama. To me, Obama is just another Dubya.

Posted by Clarkkid | February 2, 2008 6:14 PM

Why would any supposedly objective journalist print a piece of propaganda by Clinton's campaign manager?

Posted by Cdonham | February 2, 2008 6:15 PM

Why would any supposedly objective journalist print a piece of propaganda by Clinton's campaign manager?

Posted by Cdonham | February 2, 2008 6:15 PM

Couldn't agree more with Mr. Penn. Obama is a blank slate that people are writing whatever they believe on. He has, however, shown himself to be bigtime pro-nuclear power, pro-coal and voted for tax breaks for oil companies (EXXON needs a tax break). As an environmentalist, I support Clinton.

Posted by Erik | February 2, 2008 6:16 PM

The Clinton we are faced with this time is:

1) a 15-year Wal-Mart lawyer,

2) the single person whose determination to "demonize" (her word, my friends) opponents of her own health care play is the reason a Democratic Congress and a Democratic (at least in name) President failed to give us universal health care 15 years ago.

If, in order to be "best-positioned" in the general election, the best the Democratic Party can offer voters is the person whose husband flew back to Arkansas in order to preside over the execution of a mentally retarded black man so that he could not be Willie Horton'd, then there is no reason to vote Democrat.

Recommended reading: The Worst Couple and No One Left to Lie To. Both books are by Christopher Hitchens, whom the ever-litigious Clintons did not sue for libel over either book.

Comment: It is despicable of you, Mr. Armbinder, to use The Atlantic's space to push a Clinton campaign ad into headlne-space. But not unexpected.

Posted by Charles Homer | February 2, 2008 6:17 PM

Billary would be just more of the same. She is George Bush in a skirt with Bill as the First Lady.

We need REAL change. Obama is it!

Posted by Patrick | February 2, 2008 6:18 PM

In response to Whoa Now

1) Laura Bush's profession, outside of political spouse is that of a librarian, whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lawyer, so I think that your first comparison is flawed, as the two are not really equals for the voting public, and that would become obvious pretty quickly.

2)Politics is about results, if Hillary wins the Whitehouse, then it means that she ahs not destroyed the party.

3)Contrary to you optimism WE are not running for office, THEY are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the truth. If you think differently, try to reach out to Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton to help them be the president. They will respond, thats okay I think I can do it myself.

But then of course, the choice is yours.

Posted by blake | February 2, 2008 6:19 PM

Google Mark Penn and you will find out about his ties to UNION BUSTING and tobacco lobbying and Yucca Mountain support. But Don't take my word for it. Google is the way and the light.
OBAMA '08 and '012

Posted by NMD | February 2, 2008 6:19 PM

"Obama is a blank slate that people are writing whatever they believe on. "

Which is why Obama is a better candidate than Billary, she has so much written over her that she carries more baggage than any airline would be willing to handle.

Most of her problems that she has to be the most hated woman in politics. On Obama many people haven't formed an opinion, but Hillary polarizes just as much as Bush (and that's within her own party let alone outside of it).

Voting for Hillary is voting for a Republican victory, she is their best recruiter.

Posted by Martin Bentley | February 2, 2008 6:22 PM

Course Democrats will vote for Hillary. Hillary is white.

Posted by Trail Walker | February 2, 2008 6:25 PM

Blake point one
bullshit, do you think the Clintons would not be looking at every nook and cranny for any dirt they could find...then you're being very very close minded.

2) Reagan, FDR, Kennedy all have moved the public into scaring congress to pass policy..you're analysis is way off, clinton doesnt have this ability, but Obama may?

3)equal adavantage is false, Clinton is just above equal than McCain, with the difference only being the withdraw or stay question. Obama has stated factually he was always against the war..which by no other reason than courage puts his position in a stronger liberal foothold/argument.

4) I don't even understand you're last point, if you think that her experience is going to be any different than Obama when compared to McCain in the general Election, I can only say that you will be proved wrong...who wins that argument..McCain wins against both of them, now experience only counts win you're right. Who amoung the candidates can say they were right about the IRaq war?

Posted by whoa Now | February 2, 2008 6:25 PM

This is the biggest pile of wishful thinking, spinmaster posturing I have read in a long time.
Billary would disband the Armed Forces rather than be CINC!
Anyone who believes her line should move to Russia where they have her brand of socialism with a little capitalism on the side.
This nation needs a true leader!

Posted by George Dickson | February 2, 2008 6:27 PM

George W. Bush had experience too.

What he lacked was judgment.

I'm sorry, I respect Hillary and Bill, but if she did not have the judgment to realize what W. was going to do with the authorization for war from Congress, she does not deserve to be president. It has since become public that he was prepared to go to war WITHOUT even consulting Congress, and simply went for a symbolic victory. Hillary's argument that she did not know this is bogus.

Obama has the judgment, intelligence, vision, direction, balance and pragmatism required in a good president. Some of our best presidents have been equally as un-initiated in Washington. Think Bill Clinton circa 1992. If his wife wasn't running he'd be all OVER Obama!

Posted by JFY | February 2, 2008 6:28 PM

Quit this endless bickering. There is only one candidate to take back this country. Apparently none of you really listen when Hillary speaks. The rest of this is just nonsense, and I want intelligent action from my president. She can, and will, get the job done, as difficult as that is going to be.

Kay Parker

Posted by catherine parker | February 2, 2008 6:29 PM

Quit this endless bickering. There is only one candidate to take back this country. Apparently none of you really listen when Hillary speaks. The rest of this is just nonsense, and I want intelligent action from my president. She can, and will, get the job done, as difficult as that is going to be.

Kay Parker

Posted by catherine parker | February 2, 2008 6:29 PM

Quit this endless bickering. There is only one candidate to take back this country. Apparently none of you really listen when Hillary speaks. The rest of this is just nonsense, and I want intelligent action from my president. She can, and will, get the job done, as difficult as that is going to be.

Kay Parker

Posted by catherine parker | February 2, 2008 6:29 PM

Quit this endless bickering. There is only one candidate to take back this country. Apparently none of you really listen when Hillary speaks. The rest of this is just nonsense, and I want intelligent action from my president. She can, and will, get the job done, as difficult as that is going to be.

Kay Parker

Posted by catherine parker | February 2, 2008 6:29 PM

In answer to Posted by blake | February 2, 2008 6:00 PM

1. This presupposes that there is nothing new that the Republicans can bring up against Hillary and that Obama has things in his closet that are worse than what Hillary has. That is a lot to presuppose.

2. What is your definition of uniter. Reagan turned the country around on the basis of the landslide victories he achieved and how he harnessed the nation. Is your criteria for a uniter that everyone has to be on one side. What you are saying here is pretty meaningless unless you define your terms. Hillary, on the other hand, may be the single most divisive figure still in the race. Look at her negatives. All you have done here is stated your opinion, not any basic truth. You are entitled to your opinion.

3. Iraq is not post WWII Germany or Japan, nor is it Korea. The fact that we have been there for as long as we have does not mean that we have to b there for 50 years. This sort of statement might fit neatly into your viewpoint, but it has no basis in logic.

4. This point you have made is just to incoherent for me to follow.

I addressed your points.

Posted by TOC | February 2, 2008 6:32 PM

O.K. Kids it`s adults DIALOGUE TIME.

2000-The Green Party Give Us "COWBOY"
2004-Kerry Did Not Wist To Depart From His
Sporting Life.
2008-'CHANGE'(Ha) THE DEMOCRATS JUST CAN`T
AGREE TO FIX YESTERDAY.SO HOW ARE THEY
GOING TO CHANGE TOMORROW!!!
vote for the real change.
"LET "HILARY" FIX IT"

Posted by Civil | February 2, 2008 6:33 PM

Obama is not hated by many in his own party. Clinton is. Obama has Republican support. (Eisenhower's granddaughter today). Bottom line, whose finger on the trigger, a human being with a clean slate and a good record of faith & trust?, or a machine with lots of other oil & gas running machines empowering them?

Obama's donation log is now one for the record books. Individual donors exceeded lobbyists and corporations.

Clinton could argue neither experience or change in a general election. I don't get her "experience". While Obama was down in the dirt on the streets of Chicago, Clinton was a high paid lawyer. Do we want bottom up, or a top down? Do we want Restoration?

OR RENAISSANCE! c'mon .... OBAMA '08 & '12

Posted by souljaEXVOTO | February 2, 2008 6:34 PM

I am a registered rebulican who leans toward libertarian principles amd I would NEVER vote for Hillary. When the smoke clears I will need to decide who gains my final vote - Obama or McCain, point is that Obama has an opportunity with voters like me and the GREAT POLARIZER (Billary) does NOT.

Posted by Roger C | February 2, 2008 6:34 PM

You clinton supporters talk too much. Sorry, but it does smell a little desperate.

Posted by Regina | February 2, 2008 6:34 PM

I think that either would be a good President. However, the Hillary has already been vetted argument doesn't work for me. Both she and McCain are well known. Obama is not well known by those that don't follow politics closely. To imply that when he is vetted he will be less popular is a big assumption. It seems to me that people seem to be impressed with him as they get to know him. He has demonstrated the power to inspire people toward unity--a message that a lot of us want to hear. I think inspiration trumps detailed arguments that arise during the vetting process.

I am 70; so I think that I can say that I believe that when people see a young and dynamic young person calling for unity in contrast with an old, establishment politician, many are going to go for the dynamics of youth.

Posted by hpwolfe | February 2, 2008 6:35 PM

I support Hillary Clinton. She's my kind of leader.

Posted by Tanya Harding | February 2, 2008 6:35 PM

AMERICANS:
The world is waiting for you! You have messed your self-image up way too much. We know you're undergoing a raw economy. You've been fooled for more than 20 years and counting. You need to choose either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama for president of your country. I think John McCain is a stronger-version W. Bush. And neither Bill nor HRC is a truthful person (ask me why). As many of you have said, seems like you're either too lazy or too blind-believer, moron or something else, because BEFORE I decide voting for someone I DO MY OWN RESEARCH! I've been specially researching HRC an Obama to see which of them would do best to your country. And his record is clean! But I can't say the same of Mrs. Clinton. I advice her supporters to double-check her record, her past, her present, her husband's record to see whether you should vote for her or not. If you really want to recover your good reputation. DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE, YOU NEED TO FIX YOUR REPUTATION AND YOUR SELF-IMAGE BEFORE THE WHOLE WORLD! I DID MY RESEARCH AND I HAVE BEEN MANY HOLES IN CLINTON'S RECORD. MCCAIN AND CLINTONS ARE MORE OF THE SAME

Posted by Alien | February 2, 2008 6:37 PM

THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT HILLARY
I was looking at past media coverage of Hillary, and it begins with the fair and accurate portrait, way back when, of her uncountable accomplishments, awards, projects, commitments; since childhood; to which she gave unstopable energy for the sake of making things better for us all; and immediately becomes nasty accross the board mirroring the Republican/Bush extreme hateful rhetoric against her. Something for which Bill had to ask Bush whether he was running against her or him!
She was unfairly skewered for everything, even Barbara Bush and other jealous wives jumped in for a blow, which probably drove Tipp Gore to depression(which reminds me, Mcains wife looks too fragile for this type of pressure, she had a drug addiction for which she stole from her own Foundation--Mcain did not notice probably because he was licking the Keating 5 wounds); her quotes and writings are taken out of context and mispresented. She is given horrible labels that have destroyed her standing in some segment of society for ever, while many of the last eight years crimes and scandals have only brought excuses, praise and promotions???

She is an intelligent good looking American woman with a distinguished lifelong struggle to serve her country. You can tell from her life account that she learns from her choices to do an even better job next time round, and not zig zag like Mcain and others, finding opportunities only for political goals. It has been Bills good fortune that she provided a home with steady family life: a partner with a strength to live up to the vow "till death do us part; a good daughter in whose life she made sure they were both involved and protected, regardless of personal traumas;and perhaps a great counsel.
She has earned her right to serve her nation in the highest office on her own merit, she is the epitomy of American ideal woman.

PS. We ar so fortunate to have two super leaders---Obama if not now, is young enough to carry Hillary's foundational hard and difficult work ahead next time. Future looks great for America!

Posted by Demo | February 2, 2008 6:38 PM

It is a nice spin. I am a democrat and if hillary is the candidate I am voting for Rep. Hillary is a slick candidate and changes her position as she goes along. She does not even believes in the constitution. When Al Gore won the popular vote and lost in the electroral college to Bush, Hillary siad that the constitution needs to be canged when CNN interviewer asked about it to her. Now she says that she is better suited to defend and protect the constituton. This and White Water and all other baggage will come up in the general election. she has more in her closet for swift boat type ads. She can not even know what happens in the oval office when Monica was there. How is she going to be a better judge of character when she is negotiating trade or foreing treaty or faced with threat. She voted for War and when asked anout it in the Latest debate she gave one of teh wishy washy answer one can ever come up with. Do I need say more?

Posted by John B | February 2, 2008 6:39 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let me get this straight. You say Hillary has strength? And she has experience, too? Wow, not just strength and not just experience, but strength AND experience! Man, I'm almost giddy. It's like I'm seeing her for the first time. This changes everything! If only they'd made this argument before, I wouldn't have spent all this time and money supporting Obama all these months. Oh well, better late than never.

Posted by NCSteve | February 2, 2008 6:40 PM

Most all of us, that have not been living in a cave, know the Clitons have a hard time telling the truth...her mate,Slick Willey, was impeached and disbared from the law profession because of his lies...now, Hillary shows her problem with speaking the truth, i.e., this bull she states about having 35 yrs. of experience is an example of her "bunkum for the masses"...what? eight yrs. as a Senator is all she can really claim and there she only managed a 20 X 30ft office...there are loads of other examples of her problem with telling the truth...USA needs a President that we can trust to speak the truth and Hillary doesn't.

Posted by Lance Kellogg | February 2, 2008 6:40 PM

Poppycock! I'm a registered independent, always have been. I vote for republicans, democrats, "third party" candidates, and would very much like to see a "none of the above" option which exists on ballots in many other countries (the "protest" vote is a valid statistic to track!). Independents are leaning left these days, myself included, because we know that we must change our current course. But as many have already pointed out Clinton is more of the SAME! Obama, love him or hate him, has the potential to be different. Listen up Democrats, if you select Clinton as your candidate she will be faced with an EXTREMELY attractive opponent to us independents. McCain, whether deserved or not, has a reputation for being independently minded a kindred quality to those of us who vote independent of party membership. This memo is a pitiful attempt to obscure what is now well established, i.e. Clinton is ONLY liked by her supporters, us skeptics and independents are unimpressed and unlikely to vote for her. While we tend to be dubious about all politicians Obama seems to hold out a promise for something fresh. Given the opportunity to choose between two old and stale politicians like McCain and Clinton, well, this independent voter would probably choose McCain. Given the choice between Obama and McCain then I think I'd take my chances with the young upstart. Good lucks Dems, I hope you make the right choice.

Posted by JP | February 2, 2008 6:40 PM

I agree with Penn's analysis on this extremely significant point; Hillary's stronger than average appeal among Hispanics and women. No Democratic candidate can win without a stronger than average turnout for the Democrats among these two groups. When women and Hispanics split more evenly among the Democrats and Republicans, Democrats lose.

I think, especially against a candidate like McCain who appeals so strongly to male independents and moderate Republicans, the argument that Hillary can still make it over the top with heavy support from these two groups (women and Hispanics) is much stronger than the argument that Obama can do so by attracting more of those independent and moderate Republican voters to his side.

Frankly, I think independent and moderate Republican women are more likely to swing to Hillary, and in greater numbers, than independent and moderate Republican men are likely to swing to Obama.

So, whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama, it is their strength among these two constituencies, women and Hispanics, that will determine if they win.

One reason why the media is so consistently wrong about the Clintons is that they so consistently overlook the significance of or minimize the impact of women, especially working class women who are not at all represented in the media debate or political narratives, in the political scheme of things.

Posted by mary | February 2, 2008 6:41 PM

Blake,

Hillary will ruin the party because the youth has overwelmingly spoken out for Obama--with Hillary in office, you loose that generation for a long long time.

Have you ever seen how many 30 and under voters out supporting Obama, Hillary will disenfranchise them for life. They won't b involved in politics for years to come...if you cant see that, then you are having trouble with your eyesight.

The comparison to Laura Bush point was illustrating the 49% of the US that hates clintons and will do anything to stop her/him.

The difference in We and I is symbolic, which you missed...he is asking us as a nation to help make America a better place, as a group, as a nation. Hillary on the other hand thinks she can do it alone without the population. This is the point, Obama can ask me to do something and I will likely do it, many people under 30 agree If Hillary ask the same, not gonna happen.

So with elected Hillary you aree in fact killing the democratic party, you kill the youth, you kill the party.

Posted by whoanow | February 2, 2008 6:41 PM

Hmmmm lets see....democrats are gonna vote for whoever the nominee is. Check. Republicans are gonna vote for whoever their nominee is. Check. INDEPENDENTS are gonna vote for the candidate they like most. Ooops. What is Billary gonna do? This email is from the biggest insider campaign in the history of the the party. She talks about leadership, where was her vision and strong qualities of decision when she had to vote on the Iraq War Resolution? The most important legislation the Bush presidency and she fails. Kerry failed to and look what happened to him. She's not visionary, she's an oppurtunist. She didnt have the courage at the time to stand up to the jingoism that perfused our country. Im an average citizen and I could have told u without any briefings that all Saddam Hussein had was a rusty pistol and his cigars. I wouldn't be surprised if the Israeli lobby that so strongly supports her had a hand in that decision too. If Obama's beholden, Clinton is bought, locked up and enslaved to right wing, Zionist interests and her husband has been bought by the middle eastern sheikhs.

Posted by T Khan | February 2, 2008 6:43 PM

The memo is wrong and the polls are wrong. Polls which show Hillary and Barack running equally well against McCain are a measure of current psychology, not the psychology we will see in November.

There are 2 motivating factors which currently drive the Democratic electorate: Loathing for George W. Bush, and passionate support for Barack Obama. Sure, Hillary Clinton has supporters, but outside of Bill and Chelsea, it's unlikely that any of them support her with the passion that Obama's supporters feel for Barack. Obama suporters love Barack Obama. Hillary's supporters think she'd do a good job.

We know for certain that one of these motivating factors will be absent in November. We won't get to run against GW Bush. McCain (presumably) will be a tougher candidate to beat for either Democrat, because we won't have the anybody-but-bush factor, because even McCain will be better than Bush.

Now consider what happens if the we lose the second motivating factor. Obama supporters are so passionate in their support for him, that I believe a substantial number will not want to vote if they don't get to vote for Barack. Others will do the simple election year math. If Hillary wins, it will be 8 years before they get another chance to elect Obama. If she loses, it will be only 4 years.

Hillary's nomination will have the effect of driving Republicans to the polls, while dissuading Obama supporters from turning out to vote. This is why she is the weaker candidate. For more, see:

THE REASON that Clinton supporters should vote for Obama

Posted by famoustrader | February 2, 2008 6:44 PM

whoanow --

Oh, for goodness sake. Such gloom and doom. If Clinton is the nominee she will certainly get the votes of many young women, at least, and probably a good many young men too. I mean, this is suppose to be the "post-femimist" generation, for whom things like race and gender don't matter, isn't it?

Posted by mary | February 2, 2008 6:47 PM

Rumor alert- Giuliani waited quietly for McCain to come out ahead. McCain is suppose to tap Giuliani as a running mate later this year.

Posted by Stealth | February 2, 2008 6:49 PM

I am a lifelong democrat, and there is not a chance in hell I will vote for Hillary. Obama first, Mccain 2nd, and anyone but Hillary third. Period

Posted by jack | February 2, 2008 6:52 PM

Mary...gloom and doom is right, The Democratic Party will lose me forever...and alot of people just like me. Sorry its the truth. I truly believe that with the numbers showing up to support Obama, and then if Hillary wins, I see alot of those that came out to support Obama loosing interest in politics for a long long time. Status quo syndrome, it doesn';t matter what I do.

gloom and doom, yep, but from my viewpoint thats what is going to happen.

Posted by whoanow | February 2, 2008 6:53 PM

There is no term, like "Obamicans", for Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary because no such animal exists. Obama has cross-over appeal because of his unifying message and charismatic personality. By contrast, Hillary has a polarizing effect because of her divisive rhetoric, her obviously insatiable lust for power and her terminally narcissistic husband.
Obama will beat McCain, Hillary cannot.

Posted by Eve | February 2, 2008 6:54 PM

>>But those arguments don’t hold up to current polling, to history or to what is likely to happen in a general election.

---------------------------
It is amazing that folks are relying at such a level on the polls. The polls are NOT science, and - under the current atmosphere - therefore NOT predictive. Anyone who deals with polls and surveys will (or should) tell you that quickly. There are so many opportunities for errors .... particularly at the sample population numbers that they are using to base their data. We are dealing with highly diverse population that "intuitively" appears highly indecisive and changeable. It will be sensitive to many externalities such as press coverage, campaign strategies, late breaking information and yes, that strange American tradition - door-to-door grassroots campaigning.

The largest issue with these polls is that they are simply incapable of capturing an adequate representation of HOW the VOTING population will behave come super Tuesday. More and more of the younger voting population have no land lines ... they are all cell based. And is often difficult for this population, they are also transient (even with the cell phone number). It is unlikely that they will be represented ... and, based on exit polls, may be more representative of the population that would vote Obama. This becomes then a 'hidden' number and its lack of representation would skew the percentages at a statistically significant level.

Whether Clinton will win come Tuesday is NOT known.

I have not had the chance to see if anyone is polling to capture measures of voter trust. Is the voting population giving 'honest' responses. There is some indication that they are not ....

Posted by polls? | February 2, 2008 6:55 PM

Hillary is a uniter. Unfortunately what she can unite is the opposition. I believe she is the only Democrat who can possibly lose this election.

Posted by Den Land | February 2, 2008 6:55 PM

I love the inferior minds that criticize someone for taking public donations from regular people instead of lobbyists like Clinton. So, if the logic is right, Obama is responsible for the pot smoker that gives him a 25 dollar donation to his campaign? Is that right? Because the amount of money donated is trivial to the morality of the individual. Explain to me how accepting money from people means you have to be accountable for every one of their actions that judgments can be placed on? Explain this. Explain how having to do a background check on every individual that is an American citizen and donates to campaigns makes sense. Everyone can be judged on anything, but I think this trivial attempts to blacken Obama's name are foolish and misplaced by biased individuals with no integrity.

Posted by Sin Amos | February 2, 2008 6:58 PM

I'm first time voter young male voting for Hillary because I know to distinguish substance versus glitter. Hillary has done her homework and is better equipped to undo the mess that Bush has done to our nation. I don't dislike Obama, but don't want to waste my vote on an aprentice who will doing a lot of trial and errors to make it right. Our economy is in decline and we Americans are not being welcomed in the world. With Hillary who is a first class educated woman with a sharp intelligence is fit to be the first president. Vote with your mind not your hearts. Hillary got substance, Obama's got the charisma it made Bush so popular.

Posted by Julian | February 2, 2008 6:58 PM

Penn has been running a very short sighted campaign. He needs to get ready to be Barack and rolled.

Posted by eSPO | February 2, 2008 6:58 PM

didn't Romney make similar arguments to the GOP, only it was supposing the possibility of Obama winning the Dem nominee?!

uh, hello?

reality check?

Posted by tim | February 2, 2008 7:03 PM

WHoooah. Here is what I (37 year old) see this shaping up. This is not a black white thing, a male or female issue. Ultimately this is a TIRED OF THE BOOMERS (ME GENERATION) screwing up the world. 16years is enough. An earlier poster pointed it out. "Yes WE can" or "Yes I can". I am a life long democrat, voted for Bill,Bill,Al and John. If Hilary is the nominee vs John McCain... I will be voting for John McCain (not a boomer...) I want to be able to trust the president again, most of his positions are far enough left for me. There you have it, boomer land.

Posted by Tired of Boomers | February 2, 2008 7:04 PM

Maybe I don't get it but why hasn't any candidate mentioned the possibility of taking a step back to the days when insurance was used for catastrophic needs such as cancer or auto accidents among many other circumstances less life threatening such as childbirth. When we visited our family doctor it was because we were feeling sick, broke an arm, developed allergies, and other ordinary human health occurrences. The insurance and drug industries within the last 35 years have used fear as inducement for the masses to subscribe to a predisposed mindset that insurance will cover everything needed....when it won't. Now the insurance industry is using family genetic history as a reason to deny coverage even after they have collected premiums for years before the "insured" developed a genetically predisposed condition. That's only one example of how the insurance and drug industries become "deciders". Another example: What happened to trusting a family physician? Mal-practice insurance...that's what.
Trust has become an unaffordable commodity. America can expect to see much more backlash as the baby boomers age. Neither party, gender, or race is ready to tackle it.

Posted by linda in cincinnati | February 2, 2008 7:04 PM

Obama is clearly a stronger hopeful leader for change. Hillary is the only one that wants her in the White House again.

Posted by Nope | February 2, 2008 7:06 PM

Goldman Sachs made tons shorting the subprime securities it sold, and now Goldman Sachs and it's employees are the number one source of funds for both Obama and Hillary. Goldman Sachs has been bankrolling the Clintons for over 15 years, Goldman Sachs was Bill's number one contributor back in the 90's. How stupid are Americans?? Wake Up!

Posted by Joe Ryan | February 2, 2008 7:07 PM

That memo is so hollow as to be laughable. What is it about the Clinton campaign that makes them sound like a bunch of used car salesmen?
Oh yeah - Mark Penn!

Go Obama!

Posted by Julie | February 2, 2008 7:07 PM

The media loves a good fight and desparate for sensational stuff to make news rather than helping voters to focus on substance. Unfortunately that does a disservice to the democratic process because voters are mislead to vote using the EQ (who they feel like better) rather than IQ (who is more likely to lead america back on track after Bush derailed it.) That's precisely the formula to elect uncompetent officials and officials big biz can manipulate. Wake up America, Obama probably only 1% in IQ and experience of Clinton, you feel safe to leave the most important duty of managing the most complicated government in the world on his hands? and continue to pile up national debt by borrowing from other countries? and see your children's future bleaker than ever?

Posted by Jerry | February 2, 2008 7:07 PM

Obama is the candidate America needs at this point. He is appealing to people from all walks of life and has the best chance to bring about the change this country so sorely needs. What better message could we send to the rest of the world than to elect and articulate intelligent person of multiple backgrounds. It would show that the United States truly supports the fact we are a multi-racial country made of immigrants from all over the world. Think about the impact someone like Obama would have negotiating with leaders from other countries.

I heard him speak when he was running for the senate in Chicago and came away from the talk saying I just heard someone that should become president of our country. Electing Obama is a once in a lifetime opportunity to put our country on the right track. The Clintons in my opinion have too much baggage and owe too many people to be truly effective.

Posted by Cliff | February 2, 2008 7:09 PM

famoustrader --

Did you noticed the MUCH larger than average turnout among women in New Hampshire and Nevada? IF, and yes it is a big if, Clinton does win the nomination it will be because of similarly passionate engagement of women voters in the remaining primaries. If women show up in similar numbers in the general election, there is nothing that can stop her.

Posted by mary | February 2, 2008 7:10 PM

MARK PENN,

You are as big a spinner and liar as your candidate, and you play Hillary's and Bills dirty tactics as well. "WE THE PEOPLE" DO NOT OWE HILLARY A DARNED THING. SHE is in the race to attain POWER, nothing more! Hillary and BIll LACK INTEGRITY, HONESTY, CHARACTER, AND JUDGEMENT! Take a good look at your candidate(s) and their campaign, of which you are a major part! It has been filled with lies, distortions, race cards, gender cards, and just a downright filthy campaign. But then, that is the best we can expect from the Clintons. They are full of dirty tricks, CORRUPTION, SCANDALS AND COVERUPS
The American citizenship has NOT forgotten the DIRTY SIDE OF THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY!!

Here is some more garbage from the "CLINTON CONNECTION""

"CAMPAIGN COCHAIR SAYS CLINTON-OBAMA TICKET IS A POSSIBILITY" dated 1 Feb 08.

"Ferguson said Clinton's Democratic rival Barach Obama has appeal among young voters - ESPECIALLY YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICANS - that would make him a potent vote getter as a VP running mate...." "Ferguson said Obama has managed to distance himself from Jackson and Rev A. Sharpton..... "as long as he keeps Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton in the closet, white folk don't think he's black" Ferguson said of Obama. "He's managed to be a Tiger Woods and Oprah....

THIS IS THE KIND OF GARBAGE THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN HAS CONTINUALLY SPEWED AND CONTINUES TO SPEW. The Clintons are a disgrace to our democracy and to our country!!! They need to go away, and while they're at it, please collect the rest of dishonest gang that makes up her campaign and hide your ugly Roveian tactics and join them the Clintons on an Island somewhere far, far away from the United States of America!!

Posted by NinaK | February 2, 2008 7:10 PM

MARK PENN,

You are as big a spinner and liar as your candidate, and you play Hillary's and Bills dirty tactics as well. "WE THE PEOPLE" DO NOT OWE HILLARY A DARNED THING. SHE is in the race to attain POWER, nothing more! Hillary and BIll LACK INTEGRITY, HONESTY, CHARACTER, AND JUDGEMENT! Take a good look at your candidate(s) and their campaign, of which you are a major part! It has been filled with lies, distortions, race cards, gender cards, and just a downright filthy campaign. But then, that is the best we can expect from the Clintons. They are full of dirty tricks, CORRUPTION, SCANDALS AND COVERUPS
The American citizenship has NOT forgotten the DIRTY SIDE OF THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY!!

Here is some more garbage from the "CLINTON CONNECTION""

"CAMPAIGN COCHAIR SAYS CLINTON-OBAMA TICKET IS A POSSIBILITY" dated 1 Feb 08.

"Ferguson said Clinton's Democratic rival Barach Obama has appeal among young voters - ESPECIALLY YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICANS - that would make him a potent vote getter as a VP running mate...." "Ferguson said Obama has managed to distance himself from Jackson and Rev A. Sharpton..... "as long as he keeps Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton in the closet, white folk don't think he's black" Ferguson said of Obama. "He's managed to be a Tiger Woods and Oprah....

THIS IS THE KIND OF GARBAGE THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN HAS CONTINUALLY SPEWED AND CONTINUES TO SPEW. The Clintons are a disgrace to our democracy and to our country!!! They need to go away, and while they're at it, please collect the rest of dishonest gang that makes up her campaign and hide your ugly Roveian tactics and join them the Clintons on an Island somewhere far, far away from the United States of America!!

Posted by NinaK | February 2, 2008 7:11 PM

Come to Ohio and try to tell people Clinton will win against McCain.

Posted by CBP | February 2, 2008 7:11 PM

Hillary is a little stronger than Barack, but she's got errant policy proposals too, such as freezing interests rates for FIVE YEARS!!! that's very dangerous and would never work in a free market - it would mean international capital would flee, and our economy would suffer massively - every command/control economy suffers, look at communism. But if Hillary selects Barack as her VP, they will totally beat the republicans, who have clearly devastated the country with their policies.. and I am not anti-republican.. but they have destroyed so much with the free-trade job giveaways that don't open foreign markets or protect intellectual property, with the energy policies of Cheney and Bush, with the war in Iraq which was a total error and unleashed bin laden in Iraq, which is a better place to wage war than Afganistan.. very thoughtless of the ruling elite republican strategists who guided bush.. we lost half a trillion+ dollars made to bomb iraq to death, and yet they balk at miniscule spending on social improvements? we could have rebuilt all of america for that trillion dollars.. and now we owe china 9$trillion, how does that stabilize the world?

Dems must get power and raise taxes on the rich to pay for this mess, it's the only way.. 1% or 2% increase on the rich balances the budget! it's way ok and doesn't costs them much of their millions/billions.. bush screwed us up really bad, and most of us know it. . the others just are hiding from the truth. and I'm independant, NOT democrat, nor partisan at all..
blessings to everyone.

Posted by Cecil Smith | February 2, 2008 7:13 PM

Right ON!!!!

I look to who they believe can end a war and protect us against future wars. These decisions are complex and we need someone like Hillary to see all facets of it - and not resort to sloganeering.

That is Hillary! Obama is just a talking head that shies away when a real decision has to be made. Remember how he chose to hide when a bill on Iran was on the table? Well, Presodents cant hide from problems.

Posted by FJ Stratford | February 2, 2008 7:15 PM

mary,

you are correct, she does have a huge turnout of women..the problem is they all have one thing in common...they are Democrats...In the general election, she probably would still win the women's vote...but make no mistake about it...Republican women hate her as much as anyone. The good thing about it is that Obama would still win the women's vote in the general and you would gain independents and some repubs.

Posted by whoanow | February 2, 2008 7:16 PM

Since when have resumes determined general elections? If they did neither dubya nor slick willy would have stood a snowball's chance in hell against their competition.

General election voters always go with the more likable candidate and whatever her virtues are being incredibly likable isn't one on Senator Clinton's.

Posted by Dirk | February 2, 2008 7:19 PM

Reading crap like this memo reminds me of why the Clintons suck so much: You can tell that even they don't believe their own B.S. Read the memo again and tell me you think they're leveling with you.
As a lifelong Democrat/progressive/liberal/whatever, I can tell you I expect the Republicans to lie to me. Being lied to by people who are allegedly on my side is deeply upsetting.
Obama's words just ring with truth. I don't know what it is, but they do. He's got my vote.

Posted by sara | February 2, 2008 7:20 PM

I don't think anybody has remarked on what may be the really decisive point when people get into the polling booth. I for one am sick and tired of watching our elected politicians lie to us.

Of course, GWBII takes the cake as a liar. Even the Republicans can see that. There's only so much history you can change. Who can forget Bill Clinton waving his finger at us and saying "I did not have sex with that woman". Or, "it depends upon what your definition of is, is".

And every time that Billary tries to spin her support of the Iraq war into something else, it's obvious she is lying. Obama may have a few hesitations in answering questions and he may have some awkward pauses while he thinks about his answers, but that's because he's actually answering the questions himself, not spouting the carefully-vetted and carefully-researched spin lines of his handlers.

In the words of fellow southerners, I'll vote for a yaller dog as long as it's not a republican. Even more so if that person's not standing there lying to us.

Posted by blindbear | February 2, 2008 7:21 PM

WHAT A JOKE- he is clearly in denial. 15,000 people came to see Obama today in "red state" Idaho. You think those people would turn out to vote for Hillary? DREAM ON.

Posted by Keala | February 2, 2008 7:27 PM

I'm one of those democrat leaning Independents that will vote McCain if Hillary is the Dem nominee..I am not alone.

ABC..

Posted by MEG | February 2, 2008 7:31 PM

GOP won't be able to rip HRC to pieces. They have used everything they could to attack her but unsuccessful. She is still standing and smiling. What else they can use to attack her? I can't see anything new.

She won the NY senate the first try when it was a strong hold of GOP. That speaks volume. If you said the first time was a fluke, then she shouldn't have won re-election with 60% majority.

On all policies match up against MaCain or other GOP candidate, HRC win on all arguments. She has a better proposal, concrete, and give benefit for American people.

Who do you think has a better grip at economy problem, healthcare problem, all sorts of problem here domestically.

Who do you think will fight and defend for American interest in the world forum.

Who do you think will be the tough negotiator that will not take any nonsense from Russia or North Korea, WHILE at the same time maintain diplomatic tie? Who did Beijing government allow to speak about women right when China civil right is sub-par?

All the records speak for itself.

Obama is new. GOP will dig into his past. We will hear of something new that GOP will use to attack him. Rezko deal will be ripped apart and spun around to attack Obama.

Granted that I believe Obama as he claimed that his house deal was a mistake, and that his letter was to support the housing project and not Rezko. He as a Senator wrote a letter to support a government housing project which 2/3 of it turn out to be in non-working condition. And GOP won't rip him to pieces? I already hear the word incompetence coming. And this is just one case. How many more case GOP will dig up? Can Obama deflect the attack and win the argument? I'm not sure. But I'm think HRC sure can do.

Posted by JoeySky18 | February 2, 2008 7:33 PM

If McCain becomes the nominee for republicans then obama have no chance in hell to debate with him on foreign policy and security issues.
there are no credentials to match.
it is very easy to talk positive and hopeful but talk only does not help. world and america needs actions. right actions come with experience which obama does not have.
come general election campaigne and if obama is the democratic candidate then America must be ready for the worst. IF mcCain is president which is a big if then he will be dwarfed by his own party conservative base. if obama is president then his motivational talk will not work with leaders of Iran . Russia ,North Korea , China and all the world in genreal.
AMERICA IS JUST HARVESTING THE PRODUCT OF WASHINGTON OUTSIDER GEORGE BUSH, MAY BE THE WORST PRESIDENT IN RECENT MEMORY AND OBAMA WILL PASS HIM AS OUTSIDER.
Hillary with her first hand experience of world affairs can match the mental strength of any world leader and if she becomes president then in my humble view SHE WILL BE GOD SENT GIFT TO AMERICA TO SAVE US FROM THE MESS WE ARE IN
bhagwan deol. california

Posted by bhagwan deol | February 2, 2008 7:41 PM

Talk radio is attacking Clinton constantly. On the other side, talk radio is saying nothing bad about Obama. The Republicans are praying for an Obama candidacy. The Republican machine will attack Obama on national security. The church that Obama attends which follows "the black value system" will be brought up by Hannity, and Rush, and others. Obama has no where to go but down in poll numbers. However, most of the resentment toward Hillary is based upon Republican propaganda. Once people, especially women, see more of Hillary her poll numbers will increase. Further, most of the electorate now is woman, and once survey said that up to 24% of Republican women might voter for Hillary. That adds up to landslide, and Republicans know it. That is why Obama has gotten a pass by the Republicans, but that will not last is he becomes the nominee.

Posted by Will | February 2, 2008 7:42 PM

Sen. Clinton is by far the better candidate to take on Sen. McCain!She is ready today to beat him and lead the country. If Sen. Obama could defeat McCain , which I doubt, it would take him all of his 4 years, before he would lose his reelection effort, to be trained and ready to lead us at home and globally.

Posted by JB Peters | February 2, 2008 7:42 PM

Hillary gets NO Republicans. NO Independents. And she doesn't even get all the Democrats.
She IS however, the ONLY thing that can unite the GOP.

In what world is she the better candidate against McCain?

Posted by rikyrah | February 2, 2008 7:43 PM

The next president must be ready on Day 1 to restore the nation and its people. It will be a long slog. The next president must be up to it.

Obama is whistling an optimistic tune, though so far, when compared to his main rivals, it has the substance and specifics of a chewing gum ad jingle.

Since joining the Senate in 2001, she displayed a knack for getting things done across party lines, just the opposite of what her critics expected.

Since joining the Senate in 2001, she displayed a knack for getting things done across party lines, just the opposite of what her critics expected.

The country would be well served if her plans for tax fairness and universal health care were accomplished in the same competent manner.

Hillary Clinton is a lightning rod. Polls show that she polarizes a segment of the country. Anyone who witnessed Bill Clinton's two terms in office doesn't need a poll to understand that the first lady came under a well-funded and generally unfair assault by smear artists who knew which buttons to push on her natural enemies, often conservative white males. Courtesy- Anniston Star

Lightening rods make changes while chewing jingle only makes mess on your shoes.

Hilary 2008
-----------
Mark Penn, Hillary tells America "I am going to get up everyday and work and every minute of everday I am going to figure out how to help somebody" What does she mean? With her VAST EXPERIENCE OF 35 YEARS, I wouldn't think she'd spend every minute of every day figuring how to help somebody. I WOULD EXPECT HER TO KNOW!! Is that ALL she's going to do as President (if that should be our misfortune)? No wonder Bill feels he is part of the ticket! Which by the way, shows Hillary has NO backbone, she ride's her husband's just as she rides his politcal coattails.

Posted by NinaK | February 2, 2008 7:44 PM

Lifelong liberal democrat who voted for McGovern, Carter, Clinton; I'm for Obama and sick of the Clintons. If Hilary is the nominee I will vote for
McCain.

Posted by steve r | February 2, 2008 7:45 PM

I'm another democrat that will vote McCain if Hillary is the nominee and I know there are a lot of us that just don't want the Clintons back and 8 more years of scandal.

Posted by Jeremy | February 2, 2008 7:48 PM

Hillary Co-Chairman admit excepting checks from Rezco! Hillary take photo with Rezco at a campaign fundraiser!

Posted by washington | February 2, 2008 7:53 PM

I support Hillary, I always have and that is why I agree with everything Obama has said. He is not yet as detailed in his platform, but the general stance is really the same as Clinton's. Unless you have bought into the branding of Hillary, by the right wing, which has been going on for years.
I believe it is in our interests to elect Hillary in 2008 and 2012, preferably with Obama as VP, then eight years of Obama.

All the "differences" here which have been touted with such animosity are all superficial bull. The neocons have succeeded in dividing the Democratic party once again. Hillary was always a great threat to them and that's why they invested so much effort in demonizing her. Obama, on the other hand is like a preacher. Great rhetoric but not enough substance. However, I believe he is a good man who will make a great President in 2016. It seems that he is becoming more of a politician with each passing day of this campaign. Politicians are disingenuous, it's true and Hillary is no exception. But she represents the best chance for change and for repairing the mess that Bush got us into. There is little light between Clinton and Obama on the issues. That's why I don't understand how a Republican could vote for Obama, after having examined his ideas.

When I heard Obama speak for the first time at the DNC in 2004, I was one of the people that couldn't stop talking about him. But I envisioned his running as VP to Hillary, and then taking the White House for two terms of his own, When his development as a states-person was finished.

The vote for the resolution to grant Bush authority to use force in Iraq was supported by most of the dems in congress. Obama was a state senator. What would he have done if he were in the US senate? Voted present in the name of political expediency? Hillary warned Bush at the time that he was not authorized to wage a preemptive war against Iraq. She expected Bush to place the inspectors back in Iraq, and there was to be a bit of sabre rattling to ensure that WMDs, if found would be destroyed under penalty of military force by the USA. Kerry supported this resolution, too, as did most of congress. This was a direct result of the post 911 politics of fear which the neocons relish.

The "uniter" thing is also BS. We are in the midst of a culture war. No Religious right, social conservative is going to support a women's right to choose, or appoint fair-minded justices to the Supreme Court, maintain a healthy separation of Church and State, etc.. The neocons won't examine what is wrong with our penal system, they won't get us out of Iraq, and they won't relent on their militaristic, imperialistic view of foreign policy. They don't want affirmative action. It was they who put the words "under god" into our pledge of allegiance back in the McCarthy era. I could go on and on. These two sides will never be united and we have to win in order to have a truly free and democratic republic, with equal opportunity for all Americans, and a compassionate, legal path to citizenship for immigrants.

Posted by messagero | February 2, 2008 7:58 PM

so many insightful comments above me, i'm sure to get lost in the mix, but i have a few remarks i hope you'll read.

Personally, the memo reminds me of every reason not to vote for Hillary.

First, the memo really has nothing to do with McCain. Every point in the memo was about Obama. It is typical Mark Penn "jedi mindtrick" (Is there any question about Mark Penn using the dark side of The Force?) making absurd statements of what people will do and what people believe with the intent of getting the people to subconsciously believe that is how they feel. "Hillary is uniquely able to end the war"? Does anybody really believe that? Also, McCain's and Hillary's negatives are fully factored in and Obama's are not? I don't believe that for a second. All available information is factored in to polls, by definition. The truth is Obama has not put Hillary's negatives and past scandals in the spotlight at all, which the republicans are assured to do, over and over again. This will have an effect on future polls. The voice of over 50% of the country that views Hillary negatively will only get louder.

Secondly, as an independent and a swing vote, Penn doesn't even come close to understanding how I view the field and how many like-minded people feel. I would not describe myself as a democratically leaning independent but I do support Obama. Obama is my first choice and I would vote for any republican over Hillary. She is seen as a manipulating liar and a fraud.

Lastly, are they still using the well vetted argument? Obama doesn't have the same skeletons in his closet as Hillary. His Rezko (slumlord) ties seems to be the worst the Clinton investigative team came up with and Obama handled it professionally and I highly doubt it will influence anybody's vote. His drug use - Bill Clinton smoked pot and addressed the issue like an adolescent claiming he didn't inhale. Again, Obama handled the issue in a professional manner and disclosed it. Americans will not be influneced in making a decision on a 46 year old because he partied a bit as a teenager. Look at the Clinton's scandals now - records disappeared, they tried to conceal all the material facts, all evidence points to serious wrongdoings by the Clintons, and I've lost count of the number of "suicides" surrounding the controversies. Clearly their hands are dirty and the claim that Hillary is "vetted" is laughable.

Posted by ian abraham | February 2, 2008 8:48 PM

I'm not a Dem, but on the war, my question to Barack Obama will be; "If you were presented with the false evidence that only the senator had privilege to, after that kind of attack on our homeland, would you have voted no?"

Posted by neutron | February 2, 2008 8:56 PM

Mark Penn is just another brick in the wall. Anyone who would trust someone who takes on the clients he does is engaging in wishful thinking that he could ever be trusted to tell some truth. By association, anyone who would trust him to "read" the "public mind" is not displaying good judgment, but an insatiable desire to win by any means necessary. The Clinton's may have been elected by claiming to support liberal causes, but they were responsible more than others to make the democratic party a one issue party - a woman's right to choose. An important issue, to be sure, but taken on at the expense of every other social issue once under the democratic tent. I don't trust Hillary Clinton, I loathe Mark Penn, and the only experience I can see Hillary Clinton possessing is the experience of selling out to forward her political future. Obama may not have as much experience in general but his statement on "Day One" in the White House, that it is most important for a President to be right is right on. We don't need another Cold War realist. It's time to take a chance on someone who sees the possibility our "peace through stength" thinking of that era has only resulted in endless war. Obama in 08!

gp

Posted by ghostpigeon | February 2, 2008 9:07 PM

Any one who says Hillary will divide the party has been sleeping for 16 years and in a coma the last 10 years:

She has been in the party for 25 years and extremely high profile for 16 years and the party is bigger, more popular and raises more money than ever. She hasn't split it yet has she? She didn't split the senate or NY state, has she?

she has consistently been the finest money raiser in the party for these past 10 years. Democrats have begged her to stump and fundraise for them for a decade and so put aside the the argument she divides the dem party.

haters and obama supporters (they are very hard to tell apart on this blog where former deaniacs have become irrational angry obama bloggers) resist any other truths but their own.

keep in mind they both have the right to run. they both have tens of millions of supporters and hundreds of thousands of donations.

saying that its hillary's machine that raises money and calling obama's machine "grass roots" is a pathetic massaging of the truth: he is outspending clinton now and he's not way ahead.
not everyone buys the same brand of hype as obama supporters.

its not a movement. He is not the mahatma or m l king. Many of us would march with him but not vote for him. we understand the difference between a movement and a campaign. Some of us are moved by him and some of us aren't. Some of us are moved by hallmark cards BUT we value our vote more dearly than that. We get that we've been targetted by his campaign and you folks feel like your in church: that is why you don't get why we aren't impressed when you all start speaking in tongues and rolling in the aisles like my momma does in her church.

Those who don't think Hillary's being female is both a very important reaqson to lean her way AND the issue for many of these commentators and bloggers are fooling themselves. I am around kids in a public school all day and our children truely do not understand why 1/2 of the population is not at all represented in presidential history. Invent any rationale you want to vote against a qualified woman but please don't let the fools who say she is not a true feminist or that she is shrill or that her husband is a problem convince you that this woman is not electable. Being a smart talented experienced woman who has helped democrats in nearly every state raise money to get elected and represent you and your interests is not divisive: that is a line of bullshit we are being fed just as america was fed george's BS about being a uniter.
And mark penn? if he was slinging obama's side of the story some of you would fashion him a crown.

Posted by Michael C. | February 2, 2008 9:25 PM

I have to agree with messagero about the whole "uniter" thing.

I think those on the Left consistently under-estimate, and disrespect, how committed those on the Right are to their issues, and how absolutely dishonorable they believe it would be to compromise on those issues.

Those on the Left seem to think reaching agreement is just a matter of taking a friendly enough approach toward the opposition and then somehow splitting the difference on the issues. But that can't work when the people you are trying to work with genuinely believe that meeting you half way is immoral.

If Democrats hope to advance their own agenda, without the kind of compromises that so many Democrats hate Bill Clinton for making, then they are going to have to maintain control of the house and win control of the senate, or, short of that, pray that suddenly a lot more Republican moderates will be voted in to replace those on the far Right (an unlikely event).

In the current political environment the first option is much more likely than the second. For that reason, more important than the next Democratic President's ability to unite across party lines will be their ability to unite and maintain discipline in their own party. Of course, if a Republican wins the presidency and the Democrats, as looks likely, keep control of congress and gain in the senate he will have to be a "uniter" across party lines. He won't be able to govern like Bush has done.

If a Democrat wins in November, they will govern in a completely different political environment than Bill Clinton was cursed with. And it will be their own party that's likely to give them the most grief.

Posted by mary | February 2, 2008 9:27 PM

Blindbear, you say you'll vote for a yaller dog before you vote for a Republican, but it sounds like you don't like Hillary. What'll you do if she's nominated?

Posted by middlewing | February 2, 2008 9:48 PM

Mary: I agree and disagree. Even if the house and senate go strongly dem they do not just roll over for a dem president: everyone in both entities has an ego and believes they have mandate and responsibility to their voters to assert themselves in every fight.
When Carter and then Bill came to washington their own party screwed them way more often than the opposition. Hillary was there in the white house for 8 years counting votes with Stephanopolis and Emanuel and Bill and these eight years of counting votes and compromises do make her more likely to know how to get things done in 2009. Sam nunn tied bill clinton down and pissed in his mouth any number of times when Bill came in. Hillary joined up to the armed services committee as soon as she hit the senate as a result: obama has no experience that readies him for that. Can obama not get rolled by the joint chiefs a thousand ways from sunday the way bill did those first years? it didn't matter who Bill surrounded himself with, the armed services treated him like dog meat: do you remember the fuss about whether he saluted right? Don't you think they are going to slowly torture Barack the same way?
Bill the compromiser? the toughest truth of presidential politics I think is that even if you win on 43% or 51% of the vote you owe fidelity and fair representation to everyone who didn't vote for you: Bill did not shirk that obligation and arguably George's biggest crime is he did not ever consider himself obligated to the 49% of Americans who did not support him.
Does anyone think Obama won't totally screw up the transition, won't screw up half of his picks, just like Bill? won't have a travelgate and a nanny gate and kimbas and lani guiner problems?
America will step back when obama tries to undo the gays in the military compromise just as they stepped back when bill tried to solve it and got stuck settling for a compromise that hasn't worked. Compromises happen for a lot of reasons.
And Hillary did learn the lessons the hard way and these won't be quick lessons for obama: obama was brilliant but so was Bill.
The first signing statement obama or hillary tries to issue will go to the supreme court: it just won't be a level playing field. the experience will matter.

And I think America kind of intuitively gets that.

Posted by Michael C. | February 2, 2008 10:13 PM

I'm first time voter young male voting for Hillary because I know to distinguish substance versus glitter. Hillary has done her homework and is better equipped to undo the mess that Bush has done to our nation. I don't dislike Obama, but don't want to waste my vote on an aprentice who will doing a lot of trial and errors to make it right. Our economy is in decline and we Americans are not being welcomed in the world. With Hillary who is a first class educated woman with a sharp intelligence is fit to be the first president. Vote with your mind not your hearts. Hillary got substance, Obama's got the charisma it made Bush so popular.

Posted by Julian | February 2, 2008 6:58 PM
-------------------------------------------
Julian, When President George W. Bush got elected for President, he had to clean up the mess the Clintons left us with...corruption, scandals, coverups, and a broken democracy which we could not trust. Mr. Bush got into office and he and Laura cleaned up the name of the president. He had very high approval ratings. What brought him down was taking us to war in Iraq, Which HILLARY VOTED FOR. Of course she rants on and on that she was voting to put inspectors in Iraq. The title on the bill is "THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ". MILITARY FORCE = WAR!
Hillary is just as guilty as Mr. Bush for sending our troops to Iraq; she has the same blood on her hands Mr. Bush has and she is just as responsible for the many casualties and injuries of our service men and women. She is just as responsible for the many innocent Iraqi lives lost. She also voted to label the Iranian Military Forces as Terrorists...ANOTHER CASE OF MISJUDGEMENT. Hillary LACKS good judgement, integrity, honesty, wisdom, and character. I'll take those qualities over convoluted and wrong experience ANY day! (By the way, please google "The Clinton Chronicles" audio on the net).

OBAMA 08

Posted by NinaK | February 2, 2008 10:23 PM

Middle Wing,

I said I'd vote for a yaller dog before I voted Republican, but even if they're low, I still have standards. If Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for McCain. Even though Bill's a horndog and she's a b!tch, they're both liars and neither one deserves/(d) to be President.

Posted by blindbar | February 2, 2008 10:40 PM

Um I think the argument is over. Obama has been endorsed by Susan Eisenhower and The Grateful Dead today.

If that ain't unity I don't know what is.

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0147632420080202?rpc=64

Posted by David | February 2, 2008 10:55 PM

Neutron, you asked:

I'm not a Dem, but on the war, my question to Barack Obama will be; "If you were presented with the false evidence that only the senator had privilege to, after that kind of attack on our homeland, would you have voted no?"

The real question should be, "if you were presented with the National Intelligence Estimate concerning the most important vote of your political career, would you bother to read it?" Hillary didn't.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 2, 2008 11:51 PM

As an Obamaniac who voted for Bill both times (it was great to finally win), I will probably vote for HRC if she gets the nom but it really depends on how she gets it.

I would prefer not to be put in that position since I think McCain will spank her self-annointed 35 years of experience with a cursory note of his experiences of the real cost of war in a jungle a few thousand miles away, just as she was dissecting the importance of Saul Alinsky over a nice cup of coffee.

I think someone got it right, while Barack may not be able to unite America, HRC sure will unite the Repubs. Then again, my conservative friends say McC is a lib anyhow so why complain :)

Posted by Reggie W. | February 3, 2008 12:27 AM

As an Obamaniac who voted for Bill both times (it was great to finally win), I will probably vote for HRC if she gets the nom but it really depends on how she gets it.

I would prefer not to be put in that position since I think McCain will spank her self-annointed 35 years of experience with a cursory note of his experiences of the real cost of war in a jungle a few thousand miles away, just as she was dissecting the importance of Saul Alinsky over a nice cup of coffee.

I think someone got it right, while Barack may not be able to unite America, HRC sure will unite the Repubs. Then again, my conservative friends say McC is a lib anyhow so why complain :)

Posted by Reggie W. | February 3, 2008 12:27 AM

My response to the following points are as follows:

"Hillary will ruin the party because the youth has overwelmingly spoken out for Obama--with Hillary in office, you loose that generation for a long
long time."

Young people don't vote because they will always be disenfranchised because they will always be young, thus they will always be outside of the establishment. Even if the young people all vote this time, they will soon realize that their savior is just a politician like the rest of them. It has happened to every generation.

"Have you ever seen how many 30 and under voters out supporting Obama, Hillary will disenfranchise them for life. They won't b involved in politics for years to come...if you cant see that, then you are having trouble with your eyesight."

My eyesight is fine. How old do you think I am? Poor eyesight give me a break. I am just a realist.

"The comparison to Laura Bush point was illustrating the 49% of the US that hates clintons and will do anything to stop her/him."

Um actually I believe the latest poll is that 70% of american hate George Bush and will do anything to stop him. I am not sure where your poll is coming from. But to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are talking about some poll of the general election, the same can be said about Obama. Generally the general election is within about 5-7%.

"The difference in We and I is symbolic, which you missed...he is asking us as a nation to help make America a better place, as a group, as a nation. Hillary on the other hand thinks she can do it alone without the population. This is the point, Obama can ask me to do something and I will likely do it, many people under 30 agree If Hillary ask the same, not gonna happen."

Neither Hillary nor Obama need you to do anything. You may like to believe that your help is what they want, but really it is just your vote. And they don't really even need that. You Obama supporters didn't even exist in the last election as voters. You all sure as hell aren't going to vote for McCain, so really you are inconsequential in the election. All the people who are needed to vote will vote for either McCain or Hillary, and you folks will either give in and vote for Hillary, or not vote at all.

"So with elected Hillary you aree in fact killing the democratic party, you kill the youth, you kill the party."

A political party is a means to an end. The democratic party will not be killed by the lack of youth. People who don't vote don't matter. Don't you get that? Some of you will come back to one of the two parties, and some of you won't. This has been going on for quite some time.

Now that we have discussed our fellow debator's points, lets move on to some more harsh realities.

After this election there probably will be an entire generation of disenfranchised young voters because that is what always happens. What young voters don't seem to understand is that politics is about getting people to do what YOU want, (YOU being the politician). Mr. Obama is no different. I remember last year, before the election even began I got a call from Barack Obama's campaign and they said to me "Hello Blake, do you know why Barck Obama will be running for President in 2008" and I replied, "Because he wants to be President?" Barck is no saint. There are no saints or saviors in politics, just ask Ted Kennedy, he's been around the block a few times.

Experience in politics on some level is your proficiency at destroying your opponents if necessary, or using whatever tactics are needed to achieve your own goals for the country. If Mr. Obama cannot take on the Clintons then he is not the best politician and therefore will not become President, it is as simple as that. This is the experience that Hilary has and he does not. His lack of experience will become more obvious if he were to run in the general election, but that will never happen. And this is because....

Mr. Obama will have to make an important choice very soon, and he already knows it.

He will realize that if he does not decide to become Hillary Clinton's running mate his political career will be over. He will be destroyed. There is information about him that will cause him to choose to be her running mate. That is why he is open to it. He already knows this. If he didn't have to be her running mate you would never have seen him entertain the idea. He knows that he is in over his head if he takes this thing too far. He is a very gifted young politician, and I will absolutely vote for him in the future, but his year is 2016 at age 54. In the meantime he should choose a political future over the political scrapheap. Everybody knows the dirt on the Clintons, nobody knows the dirt on Obama. But there will be dirt if he continues on, rest assured. Politics is dirty, thats why when people are running for office they call eachother politicians as a slight to eachother, but really they are all politicians. Unfortunately they are all we have got.

Posted by blake | February 3, 2008 1:34 AM

It is Barack Obama who will be likely to have an easier time beating McCain. NOT Hilary Clinton. Obama demonstrated that he is the one who can beat McCain during the last CNN debate through questions regarding on the Iraq war votes. It was very effective since the same questions made Hilary Clinton look incredibly vulnerable. She was visibly upset, did not seem like knowing what to say, how to explain about her unfortunate vote. She did not have the stomach to admit that the she supported the war and it was a mistake. How can she face McCain with that! Should she repeat the same line that she wishes she knew what she knows now then? I can visualize McCain staring into her face and announcing, “Mrs. Clinton, you are not fit to be Commander in Chief of US Army” during a similar debate. He is right and he can make her look more vulnerable than Obama did. After all, McCain experienced battle ground as a solder and understands the consequences of a decision that involves military actions. With respect to experience, McCain has more. More importantly, how can a person who was for the war and voted for the war win the debate with McCain and persuade American public that it was a wrong war and we need to cancel the war (bring back the solders) right now? On the side note, the age difference between McCain and Clinton is only 10 years and is insignificant compared with 30 years between McCain and Obama.

Obama does not have McCain’s experience but he demonstrated good judgment and courage to be against the war from the beginning, which gives him credibility to state his position. Like McCain, he does not accept federal lobbyist’s money. And he has something else neither McCain or Clinton has; his relative youth and carisma.

Posted by Georgee | February 3, 2008 11:55 AM

On Obama as Hilary's VP:

I don't think his career will be over if he refuses to be her VP. I don't think it works for him to be Hilary's VP. Hilary already got Bill as a de-facto VP. She needs someone like Bill Richardson who get along with them very well. Don't have Obama go through Al Gore experience to be a third person under Clinton's co-presidency. Besides, they are very different people. Obama is a visionary leader with a messy desk. Hilary seems to be leaning a bit micro managing. It's a joke but I think the sight of Obama desk and everything else about Obama will drive Hilary crazy in the end. That's not good for the country.

Obama is a young guy. He can take a few challenges. If he loses to Hilary this time, I am sure he will reflect upon his experience, get wiser and make him ready to be our president in the near future. I hope this is Obama's time to be win. But if the winner is Hilary, I wish her and her administration a smashing success. I appreciate both management style. I just think it's better for them to have a different set of administrations at a time. Obama for pres but not for VP.

Posted by Georgee | February 3, 2008 12:10 PM

Can we just have a reality check here for a second?
McCain beats Clinton by 3 points with 2 percent undecided. Obama leads McCain by 3 points with 3 points undecided. Obama also is much stronger in the red states than Clinton would be, meaning his number likely reflect a 50-state strategy, than Clintons East Coast-West Coast, ignore the flyover states strategy. Remember, you have to win STATES not pure percentages. Clinton will not win Nevada in a general election.

Nominating Clinton also risks alienating liberal independents like me who see nothing great about Hillary Clinton. She is anti-union, she waffles on torture, she has no vision for what America will be like, she got killed on Hillarycare the first time (why would the second time be any different?), and I fear she has already sold us short to Kazakhstan (uranium deals) and Wal-Mart (she was on their board).

Don't try to buy me off with the pro-choice judges argument. I'm not going to allow myself to be marginalized on one issue.

Posted by RealityCheck | February 3, 2008 12:29 PM

The writer, Penn, has it absolutely backwards. McCain and Clinton are exact copies. The bad thing is that the Clinton brand is so divisive, the taint the Clintons left in the White House (which I believe led to the rise of the neocons and G.W Bush) will have every Republican out to vote AGAINST her. Senator Obama has the message to unify not only our party, but also the United States of America.

We have been suffering terribly under this most terrible president. We are all waiting for real change, real hope. Senator Obama is the only candidate who offers that hope. A vote for Clinton is a step back to the last century.

As for the women of my age and education and demographic who think they are voting as feminists, I encourage you to examine how the Clinton campaign has talked down to Senator Obama at every opportunity. Senator Obama is the feminist's better choice. Consider Michelle Obama--a man married to her must surely be a feminist.

Bill Clinton broke our hearts and does not belong in the White House--Bill and Hillary are a twofer. I forgive him for his personal frailties but I do not care about him anymore.

The sixty year old women I know who are supporting Senator Clinton are living in the past. I am astounded by Maxine Waters support of Senator Clinton. Although some feminist writers I have read suggest that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama had the same privileged upbringing, recall that she was raised in an upper middle class family; whereas, Obama was raised by a single mother after his father died.

Senator Obama was in the dream Dr. King had. We have this great opportunity to make real change. Please vote for Barack Obama for the Democratic nominee. Just read his book--Dreams of My Father--and learn of the heroic choices he made. He is a man of substance and character.

Posted by SusaninPG | February 3, 2008 1:10 PM

HILLARY HANDS REPUBLICANS A DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR FALL ELECTION ...

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."

GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES ...

IS THAT THE WAY DEMOCRATS TALK? ...

THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS WITH THAT KIND OF LOOSE-LIPPED LUNACY ...

Posted by MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | February 3, 2008 1:24 PM

I am not a Hillary fan, although I am clearly a democrat I could not vote for her myself. But my opinion is nothing compared to the hatred Republicans have for the Clintons. It is a pipe dream to think that somehow she can change their opinion of her when she can't even change mine(and believe me I don't want 100's of years of war).

I think Penn has no choice but to do what he did. But he's waging a losing battle.

Posted by deb | February 3, 2008 2:21 PM

Utter crap. I hardly know where to begin. So Hillary is fully "vetted," huh? Are you also her speechwriter?

Posted by Alex | February 3, 2008 2:23 PM

I'm a Hillary supporter and my Husband is a staunch Republican. He will be voting for McCain in the primary, however he has told me if Obama wins he will still vote for McCain but if Hillary wins he is leaning towards her. So to say that Hillary is totally polarizing is a little biased.
I know there has been some media on the Rezco deal. I don't want to rehash whether he took too much $ or not or whether Clinton took some also. My question to Barrack supporters is: If he is the right choice for day 1 because he has better judgement. How can when asked about purchasing the house and a parcel thereafter say that was poor judgement on my part?

Posted by Deni | February 3, 2008 2:25 PM

I know several republicans who are from Texas that are voting for Obama. They agree anybody but Hill. Obama is going to clean her clock on super tuesday. Guess what young people vote and they are going to change this election!

Posted by Rick | February 3, 2008 3:06 PM

Hillary's been runing on "Strength & Experience"...which is what McCain's been running on, and he trumps her in that category. You need to run a candidate who has a contrasting message, not the same message as the opponent but in a weaker form

Posted by Perry | February 3, 2008 3:32 PM

Am I the only one who smells some desperation in this memo? I like HRC and I think she'd be a fine president. But I don't think there is any question that Obama would do a better job at courting independent and crossover voters. If HRC wins the nomination the general will be a hard, ugly battle that I hope she would win, but at what cost? I think Obama beats McCain going away and we'll be in a better place as a country when he does.

Posted by krag2112 | February 3, 2008 3:44 PM

This just seems like classic rove style fear mongering, ah so disgusting.. though I guess bush will be very proud given how he pushed the iraq war! mushroom cloud anyone!

Posted by RO | February 3, 2008 4:10 PM

MARK PENN IS THE BLOVIATED DEMOCRATIC VERSION OF KARL ROVE.

Posted by MoneyandPolitics | February 3, 2008 5:31 PM

Here's another gem:

In her autobiography, "Living History," Clinton mentions two cases. In one, she represented a canning company against a man who found part of a dead rat in his pork and beans. In another, she represented a logging company accused of wrongdoing after an accident injured several workers. While Clinton used both anecdotes for comic effect, in both cases she was working for corporate interests.

She also served on corporate boards, including that of retail giant Wal-Mart from 1986-1992, frozen yogurt purveyor TCBY from 1985-1992 and cement manufacturer LaFarge from 1990-1992. She earned tens of thousands of dollars in fees from each.

Clinton's firm represented Wal-Mart and TCBY while she sat on their boards, a cozy practice that corporate governance experts frown upon because of the potential for conflicts of interest.

Politicians naturally want to stick to their chosen narratives, but other aspects of Clinton's relationship with the Rose Law Firm could remind voters of the more controversial side of the Clinton legacy.

There was her work on behalf of Madison Guaranty, a failed savings and loan at the heart of the Whitewater investigation — the billing records of which were mysteriously found in a White House storage room years after investigators first asked for them. And there's Webster Hubbell, a Rose partner, Clinton pal and high-ranking Justice Department official who was convicted of fraud charges related to his work at the firm.

Posted by MoneyandPolitics | February 3, 2008 5:40 PM

If you just watched the Los Angeles Rally you know why this memo was sent. Desperation is in the air for the Clintonites! Penn's memo doesn't make a lot of sense for many reasons but he is right that some Barack voters (like me) won't vote for any Democrat. In me, he has attracted a lifelong Republican. If Barack doesn't make it to the nomination I don't know what I will do but I know what I won't do and that is to vote for Hillary. Neither will my husband who is a lifelong Democrat who has already voted for Barack in California. We are two aging (60) white hippies who want to believe again!

Posted by Linda | February 3, 2008 6:42 PM

Penn reduces Obama's advantage on Iraq to having give "a speech." In fact, Obama opposed the war eloquently and repeatedly from the time of that Oct. 2002 speech right up through March 2003 and beyond. In her Oct. 2002 speech, Hillary did frame her vote in support of the resolution authorizing force as a means of obtaining a U.N. resolution to renew thorough weapons inspections and cautioned against "a rush to war." But when Bush did rush to war in precisely the manner she had warned against, Hillary did not speak out; instead, she offered rather tepid support to Bush on at least three occasions in March '03. Obama's statements in that month are contrasted with Hillary's here.

Posted by Asp | February 3, 2008 8:33 PM

Obama is the best to go up against McCain...hands down! Penn is out in left field somewhere!

Posted by NanD | February 3, 2008 11:19 PM

From watching and reading the media they do seem to slant to the negative for Hillary. Always with the boiler plate comment " she's so divisive". I have also heard some of the media comlpian the Clinton camp does not treat them well. So I tend to believe that the reporting is more personal than objective. The media seems to gloss over some of Obama's past and his polices. Everybody has baggage, I would like to get the full story before I vote. Obama seems like a good man who talks the the talk, But I don't know if he can get things done. The health care issue is important to me and his plan is just more of the same. Most of his other stands on issues seem to be vague or unclear on how he would get things accomplished. Not being in the Senate when the vote on Iraq took place is not the same as being there.

Posted by JC | February 4, 2008 9:41 AM

Nominate Hillary, lose the general election. As simple as that. Guaranteed!

Posted by ceci | February 4, 2008 9:53 AM

Looking ahead to the general election in November, Clinton tops McCain 50 percent to 47 percent and beats Romney 56 to 41 in hypothetical matchups. Obama beats McCain 52 percent to 44 percent and tops Romney 59 percent to 36 percent. - CNN news

Posted by Malian | February 4, 2008 1:30 PM

whatever the Clinton camp is smoking is most likely illegal in 1/2 the states in the union!!!

Posted by Doreen | February 4, 2008 2:14 PM

Nominate Obama, lose the primary, the general and your mind.

Posted by Jaqueline | February 4, 2008 4:26 PM

RFK II, Kerry and Kathleen all support Hillary. And they are all Bobbys kids. I just love when people think for themselves.

Posted by Jaqueline | February 4, 2008 5:35 PM

I am a Obama supporter. I drove from Tennessee to South Carolina to volunteer for the primary. I have been out knocking on doors for the last 3 days in Tennessee for Obama.

Here is the deal that I think so many people are overlooking. I am an "Independent" who is sick and tired of politics in this country and the whole "Us vs. Them" mentality that exists today. I can't stand Hillary and won't vote for her if she winds up as the Democratic nominee. I know TONS of people in the same boat.

The hardcore "Democrats" that think that Hillary can walk on water need to wake up and realize that they can't assume that Hillary would pick up Obama supporters if she gets the party nomination. Honestly I know several people who are Obama supporters and campaign donors who if forced to select between Clinton and McCain would vote for McCain.

WHY can't the Clinton loyalist see what is truly best for this country and realize that her "experience" is exactly what we are voting against tomorrow?

Posted by Eric King | February 4, 2008 7:36 PM

Which democratic candidate will most likely win against the GOP contender this November?

Let us assume the republican nominee is McCain (a reasonable assumption given recent polling) and the answer is fairly straightforward. While Senator Clinton is doubtlessly a decent and gifted public servant, and deserving of our respect, she is inconsistent and lacks credibility on a number of key policy topics, and is too polarizing a figure for many Americans. Conversely, while many have criticized Senator Obama for his lack of wonkery, his demonstrated command of policy and more significantly the soundness of his judgment and the eloquence of his integrity speak volumes.

In a head-to-head against McCain, Clinton cannot effectively compete; her electability is greatly compromised. Indeed, far from being a fait accompli, the election of a democrat to the White House this November will require democrats to break with our tradition of partisanship, and to instead embrace a new era of hope, idealism, and yes, from-the-bottom-up action. I believe Senator Obama represents the vanguard of our democratic party, and that he, along with his coalition of voters assembled, will herald this new era into the White House come 2009.

But why not Clinton?

Perhaps the most noticeable concern for Senator Clinton is her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Intentions aside, she exercised poor judgment and made a bad decision. She claims that if she knew what she knew now at the time of the vote, she would have voted differently; I would certainly hope so. I imagine the same would be true for the vast majority of senators – on both sides of the aisle. But, more poignantly, can you imagine such a refrain being uttered by Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or, Lincoln after the attack on Fort Sumter? These presidents were presented with difficult choices, at difficult times in our national history, and had to exercise their judgment.

Senator Clinton exercised her judgment, and she chose poorly; that she has refused to acknowledge that she was wrong to vote as she did – instead, offering explanations of why she believed she was right to do so at the time – is all the more troubling. We have suffered two terms with a president incapable of expressing accountability and acknowledging fault. This vote, while troubling on its own merits, and her apologetics in the months and years following the vote, which have added insult to this injury, pale in the face of the challenges she will face against McCain during a presidential campaign.

In this, Obama has it exactly right – it is not enough to say that the war is a failure; the judgment and mindset that brought us to the point of war to begin with was flawed, and the democratic nominee for president will need to have a consistent record and unshakeable judgment on this point for there to be any credibility in a debate on the issue. Judgment does matter, and on this issue, Obama has it and Clinton does not. And, given that this issue is McCain’s strength, we must match his strength for our own.

Senator Clinton claims that she is electable because she has already been subjected to the worst of the GOP attack machine; such logic is flawed. That she has been the focus of fanatical onslaughts and survived does not mean that she will not attract similar onslaughts during a general election campaign; if anything, it only makes such attacks more likely. Similarly, this prior history does not suggest that such an onslaught will fail in its aims; on the contrary, such tactics will succeed in energizing a sizable voting bloc of the conservative demographic that might not mobilize for McCain against a different democratic contender, but will against the threat of a Clinton. Clinton claims that she is ready for such a rematch, but such bravado is reminiscent of the Bush-era ‘Bring it on’, and will serve to only further polarize the country, perpetuating well-worn patterns of mistrust and partisanship – patterns which may well demoralize many independents and moderates who seek a clean break from the decades of divisiveness.

Senator Clinton, for all her many qualities, does polarize the party, and will do the country as well. She, along with President Clinton (a man for whom I held a deep and profound respect,) have alienated a considerable bloc of the democratic faithful (a reality clearly demonstrated by the sharp increase in Obama endorsements by ‘establishment’ democrats and progressives alike in the past weeks) – and all this without the ‘help’ of the Right-Wing conspiracy. Senator and President Clinton (whether intentional or deserved) divide, polarize, and alienate. They carry with them a history, a set of battered and battle-worn baggage; and while they are correct in pointing out that this baggage provides them with unique insight and a claim to experience, is this truly the insight and experience we want to lead our next generation? Is this the legacy we hope to enshrine in the coming years?

With John McCain, or any of the likely GOP nominees for that matter, we have a link to our past, to the status quo, to a traditional model of presidential leadership; with the democratic nominee, we can and must offer a clear and decisive (as opposed to divisive) alternative. Despite McCain’s traditionalism, he is the least objectionable republican candidate for many democrats and independents. His approval ratings among democrats are off the charts; his reputation for cross-party cooperation and for bi-partisanship, is well-respected and will serve him well with independents and moderates – critical swing voters essential for a general election win. Indeed, among conservative democrats (I know, sounds crazy, but they are out there) McCain will do very well; after all, there is a reason for Liebermann’s endorsement. Clinton will have little success against the McCain campaign among these valuable demographics. In an election where states may well be won or lost on the swing voters – McCain will have a massive advantage against a Clinton ticket. Add to this a demoralized, resentful, or alienated democratic party with lower than expected voter turn-out and you find yourself not only facing a McCain presidency, but a McCain mandate.

Unlike Clinton, Senator Obama can match McCain’s popularity with independents and moderates. While Clinton has a record of partisanship, Obama has a tradition of measured cooperation with opposition to achieve results. This record will serve Obama well in a general election against McCain (or any other GOP contender for that matter,) and will parry any accusations of partisanship while promoting a positive response from independents and moderates from both parties. This factor is crucial to Obama’s electability.

Senator Clinton and others have raised concerns about his ‘lack of experience’. I find this a weak argument. I understand that there are a number of functions that require a certain level of ‘administrative’ experience, but then again, the president has quite an extensive administrative staff, and I would hope that his or her primary responsibilities are less administrative and more executive. But more to the point, how does one train for 9/11? I am not at all pleased with the Bush administration, but I cannot fault President Bush for his handling of 9/11 (though ultimately I believe it was handled poorly) because I don’t think you can train for such a contingency, or for such a job. The presidency is like no other job in the world, and to apply standard measures of experience to our candidates is foolish. What is required is less about experience and more about character, judgment, and integrity. Now, I trust that both Obama and Clinton are good and decent people, but I believe that Obama has that special something that is rare and cannot be easily quantified. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to do just that through examples set by Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.

Indeed, the examples set by Lincoln and Kennedy clearly demonstrate that practical experience, while valuable in the day-to-day administration of government, pale in importance to good character, sound judgment, and moral leadership when confronted with crisis. Lincoln and Kennedy were not ‘experienced’; they were relatively young, and had little time in government compared to their opponents (which, consequently, is not the case with Obama and Clinton) – they were, however, passionate and dedicated patriots who embraced the profound changes of their day. They were great leaders who inspired confidence and delivered on their promise to a nation. In the darkest hours of their presidency, and their nation, they did not turn to policy – no, they instead turned to their own strengths: to their character, to their judgment, to their integrity, and to their trusted advisors. Through such discourse, great leaders were empowered to lead our nation – one secured our union, the other secured our world. Senator Obama has consistently demonstrated such courage of conviction, and has made his commitment to such discourse a matter of record.

November nears. As a democrat I am committed to the election of a democratic president. To secure this future, we must move past traditional modes of thinking, act pragmatically, and nominate the candidate that can best counter the GOP contender. More importantly, and beyond simple pragmatism, we must nominate the candidate that best embodies our vision for a better future, an inspired future, and a new era of hope restored. Obama is that hope, and he can inspire us all to create for ourselves a better America.

Posted by J. Steven Alter | February 5, 2008 7:16 AM