Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Three Weight-Loss Studies You Should Know About
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Panel calls for new war powers legislation
 
 
expand

The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy

The latest attacks on Obama insult voters' intelligence.

By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 24, 2008 | Updated: 11:29  a.m. ET Jan 24, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: AngMait @ 02/12/2008 12:34:46 AM

    Comment: Sorry - I made a small typo below. Obama's statement specifically referred to the Republican Party being the Party of ideas for the past 10-15 years - not as I initially state, the last '15-20 years'.

    Regarding eddiewhere's rationale (below) for not voting for Clinton 'too many scandals' - there's a famous story of Richard Nixon meeting in the Oval Office with Kissinger. Nixon's dog. King Timahoe, was chewing the carpet. To get him to stop Nixon gave the dog a biscuit. To which Kissinger said the following "Mr President if you give him a biscuit he'll just continue chewing the carpet." Eddie - you are just giving the Republicans a biscuit. It's actually the last thing you want to do.

    Are you Democrats suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?

  • Posted By: AngMait @ 02/12/2008 12:16:05 AM

    Comment: Jonathan:

    If you want to find an eye-gouger just review Obama's victory speech in South Carolina. Or, just look at his ad which you quote from "Hilary will say anything and change nothing". By the way, in your judgement is that 'demonstrably false" or does the statement just apply to you?

    While he was pandering to the Reno Gazette, Obama said that the "Republicans were the Party of ideas for the past 15 to 20 years". This is a time frame that specifically excludes Ronald Reagan. If you check you'll see that Hillary's question at the debate had nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. Neither did her radio ad. So, I don't know why you keep going on about him. In the last 10-15 years there have been only two Presidents - George Bush Jr and Bill Clinton. Please let us all know whether you agree with him that the Presidency of George Bush Jr has been more the Party of Ideas than the eight years of the last President from Obama's own party? Why would he say that - unless he was willing to say anything to get elected?

    Can you please let us all know exactly why you think these were 'completely ordinary comments' on his part - from a 'Democrat'? What do you think he meant because you kinda left that part out. Could he have been seeking a tiny little endorsement from a Republican newspaper? Which he got?

    You criticize Clinton for going at him on this quite incredible statement on his part. Her radio ad in South Carolina merely asked questions - which ideas was Obama referring to - it asked? This is typical in all politics (Obama included) as can be demonstrated by the Obama campaign's willfully misleading claims that Bill Clinton was referring to his entire campaign a 'fairy tale'. Now that is something that WAS truly 'demonstrably false'.




  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/30/2008 3:10:46 AM

    Comment: IT is OBVIOUS that the DEMCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT KNOWs THAT OBAMA is the CANDIDATE with the BEST CHANCE to win in NOVEMBER. EVERY statistic and poll supports this fact The DEMOCRATIC party cannot risk losing the WHITE HOUSE. The only obstacle standing in OBAMA's way is the LATINO VOTE.

    THE CLINTON"S ARE JUST TO polarizing. Too many scandals, to many investigations. I do not believe they are guilty in all those scandals I just believe AMERICA needs a change from the establishment. We do not need a years worth of divisive campaigning. IT would be amazing to see McCain vs OBAMA. A GOOD CLEAN HEAVY WEIGHT FIGHT. NO ONE GETS THEIR EAR BIT OFF. A ROMNEY CAMpaign would be just like BUSH'S very divisive and full of lies. IF AMERICA CHOOSES THESE TWO CANDIDATES to represent their respective parties then I think the AMERICAN political process can begin to heal and set an example to the rest of the world. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE ARE WE SENDING IRAQIS and AFGHANS. IF we promote racial divide why shoud they give us the benefit of the doubt concerning ABU GRADE and BLACK WATER. ARE WE REALLY RACIST CAN IT BE THAT THE CLINTON"S ARE A REFLECTION OF OUR SOCIETY. DIVIDE people so we the CLINTON'S can attain the power we are entitled too and so rightfully deserve after my conduct in the OVAL OFFICE. No one else is capable of being president. I will become nasty and play the race card because the "MEDIA" is trying to take away the presidency from me and my wife.

    OBAMA HAS TO GAIN GROUND WITH THE LATINO VOTE. HE NEEDS TO BLITZ THE LATINO"S WITH COMMERCIALS OF ECONOMIC prosperity.

  • Posted By: jack.wehner @ 01/28/2008 7:01:52 PM

    Comment: Enter Your Comment

  • Posted By: jack.wehner @ 01/28/2008 7:01:50 PM

    Comment: Enter Your Comment

  • Posted By: jack.wehner @ 01/28/2008 7:01:49 PM

    Comment: Enter Your Comment

  • Posted By: Jaster @ 01/27/2008 2:11:49 AM

    Comment: But what if the Clintons were lying back then too? Bill can look you in the eye, with utter conviction in his tone, and lie his head off.

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 01/26/2008 10:03:01 PM

    Comment: Fir, we must thank Sc for showing the capacity of political maturity and intellegence that characterised all Americans from our founders to present day America. You see our Lord Jesus and our creator, the GOD of Abraham loves America because despite all our faults, we Americans are still the light of to all humanity because despite our racial and religious diversity, we are one Nation who have the capacity to recognise that we are humble enough to raise above our weaknesses as a Nation.Take notice Americans are not as divide as you are made to think and we we bless our Lord Jesus and continue to pray Our GOD: GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

  • Posted By: Change is a verb not a platform @ 01/26/2008 1:15:38 PM

    Comment: The only place I hear about lies and counter lies is from people who are not under oath , and they never have to prove what they say is the truth. It is a slippery slop these writers and pundits are playing on...and personally I hope they get burned and burned badly.

  • Posted By: Change is a verb not a platform @ 01/26/2008 1:02:10 PM

    Comment: The media is reprehensible. They are all primadonnas that can not admit when they are wrong. They interrupt their guests, step on worthwhile comments, and act all high and mighty. If the media wants to continue this jibberish, I believe at some point in time the American People will turn them off. I guess the WRITERS STRIKE is really a bad thing. BTW Chris Matthews , I believe, was the first to interject race, when he said after NH primary, that black voters would say one thing to the pollsters (voting for Obama), but when in the privacy of a voting booth they voted for Hillary. Someone should look up his quote on that.

    And another thing - What the heck was the relevance of Tim Russert's question at the debate, about what Toni Morrison said about bill Clinton being the first Black President???? What the heck was that .....???if not to stir up the racial issues.
    NO ONE CARS what she said, and many people do not even know who she is.

  • Posted By: tomdavie @ 01/26/2008 6:04:40 AM

    Comment: HERE IS ANOTHER REPORTER CREAMING HIS SHORTS OVER OBAMA. This entire article is so SPUN for Obma its nuts. These guys try to SPIN that Obama could never tell a lie. Obama could never distort the facts. The Clintons have to break down this TEFLON COATING that guys just like the guy who wrote the article are so EAGER TO PERPETUATE.

    Way to go Newsweek. This is the second so called 'journalist' who is on the Obama payroll.

    Like trying to question Obama in ANY WAY that could hurt OBAMA is AGAINST THE RULES somehow.

  • Posted By: irsmike @ 01/26/2008 3:53:31 AM

    Comment: We keep hearing all of this talk about Hillary using Bill as her "attack dog" just like a presidential candidate uses the VP candidate in the general election. Perhaps this is just a rehearsal. We also hear a lot of talk concerning who would want to be VP in a Hillary White House with the 800-pound gorilla (Bill) always in the room. Perhaps Hill and Bill have already figured out the answer: Hillary will choose Bill as her VP running mate!!!! After all, the XXII Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the Office of President more than twice..." It doesn't prohibit a former President from being elected to the Office of Vice-President. Who but the Clintons would have the audacity to pull that Constitutional stunner? And, what better title for Bill than Vice President?

  • Posted By: sean2002 @ 01/26/2008 2:44:01 AM

    Comment: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clintons, Clintons.

    No thanks.

    • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/26/2008 03:20:34

      Comment: You people who use the failures of both Bushes to imply that the Clintons would be failures is absurd. Other than 1964, every Republican ticket had either a Bush, Nixon or Dole on it. It's the GOP that can't pick anyone else. This is the first time for the Democrats and the 1990s were a good decade. Besides, Hillary is the best candidate in this race...but let your petty, simplistic slogan guide you. Reminds us of 2000 when the candidate who everyone wanted to have a beer with was a "uniter, not a diver" and gave out other slogans that made greedy people think of their taxes over whether the goofball would take them to war. You got what you voted for.

      • Posted By: mac2007 @ 01/26/2008 15:17:48

        Comment: This is not slogan, but the truth.

        For the health of our democracy, we should not let any group of people in power for too long. People in power for too long tend to be arrogant, corrupt and exude a sense of entiltement. Bill is a vivid example. His baseless and dishonest attacks on Obama reflect a mentality thinking they are entitled to return to the White House. Plus, what's Hillary's 35 years of experience? Should we count on her failed healthcare reform? Should we consider being a politician's wife as a real experience since this experience was not accountable for anything?

        We need a new leader with intellectual capacity and without bagage to lead us into the 21st century. Who want Hillary's experience, if we consider they are experience, which is shaped by the 20 century? This country needs new creativity, new ways of thinking and new leadership.

  • Posted By: mary miller @ 01/26/2008 1:52:00 AM

    Comment: Are you sleeping? Obama Hussein? He is an arab. What difference does that make? Obama is an inexperienced newbie and is not politically capable of handling the presidency of the United States. The evidence is his 'present votes', his 300k deal with 'the slum landlord' on his south side mansion with the adjoining lot. The evidence is in 4 separate interviews (ABC Invesigative news) he denied knowing Resko, when in fact, he wrote letters endorsing him and his now questionable fund raising tactics. Are you kidding? The Clintons have been investigated for 10 years to the tune of 70 million dollars and not one allegation of inappropriate dealings was ever charged. Are you kidding? His plan for health leaves 15-20 million people uninsured. His fiscal recovery plan announced 12 days after Mrs Clintons plan has been judged the worst plan by many independant financial advisors with no party affiliation. Are you kidding? Mrs Clinton is brighter, more experienced and actually has an energy plan to combat global warming. She has been an advocate for at least 15 years before Barack was even involved in politics. Are you kidding? Baracks largest contributor to his campaign is the company that wants to dump nuclear waste in Nevada. Mrs Clinton has fought that dump site for 20 years. Just what do you base Obamas qualifications on? His association with Oprah Winfrey? Are you kidding? Mrs Clinton has actually worked all over the world-not just in Africa- for children and womens rights. Their right to get an education that is goode and in all of the United States, not just a 40 million school where only the brightest girls are invited to go. Are you kidding? America needs help-not Iraq-not Africa-America needs healthcare for all-America needs a redo on infrastructure and modern factories to compete with other countries. How will Obama accomplish that when he dreams of these things and can not get past his race issues? If he can't work with all people-all colors and all religions-how can he accomplish anything? Are you kidding?

    • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 09:17:14

      Comment: This is the kind of thing this article is talking about. You just told five blatant and deliberate lies in a single paragraph. Does this help Hillary? No way - it will help to destroy her. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 09:09:16

      Comment: This is the kind of thing this article is talking about. You just told five blatant and deliberate lies in a single paragraph. Does this help Hillary? No way - it will help to destroy her. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/26/2008 1:46:10 AM

    Comment: OBAMA needs to remind Bill CLinton Who he is. This is the problem with the Clintons they are not guided by principles, they make decisions based on what 's best for them politically. They have played the race card, which is against their principles, but yet they went ahead and did it. That means they do not have confidence in their so called substantive plans. Hillary went against her principles and tried to cover up what Bill DID. This is why the Clinton are not entitlied to the WHITE HOUSE. THey have brought a lot of pain to the political process and I am shocked how quick people can sell their soul. If Bill only did it once then it is understandable, but he did it everyday for decades and HIllary knew but kept herself in denial. Obama needs to attack the Clintons with their own words because what they are doing is worrie me>> Here is an example
    of How OBAMA can flip the race card back onto the CLINTON"S.
    THE Clintons are ambivalent about America'ss role in the world, this was clearly highlighted in the after a September 11, when CLINTON in a speech at Gerogetown suggested that America actually bore some responsibility for the attacks on itself. In November 2001, even as the new Bush administration was launching America's military response, the former president made a speech at Georgetown University in which he admonished citizens who were descended "from various European lineages" that they were "not blameless," and that America's past involvement in slavery should humble them as they confronted their attackers. Characteristically the President took no responsibility for his own failure to protect Americans from the attacks.

    OBAMA TAKE MY ADVICE, YOU HAVE TO FIGHT
    The same entities run both parties. CLINTON use to be what OBAMA stood for. NOW Hillary and Bill are the establishment and are now using words like slum, and insinuating that OBAMA is black and playing to the white vote. WHITE voters recognize this flip flop, this is why white men have not come out and vote for Hillary.

  • Posted By: sean2002 @ 01/26/2008 1:40:35 AM

    Comment: Bush is the best testimony to prove that at least half of the voters are dumb. Which is only part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the mainstream media's lack of imagination. They, including New York Times' Editorial Board, rather stick with the so-called "experienced" Clinton because they don't have the daring imagination to think out of the box--to envision a young, energetic leader with great intellectual capacity and without any baggage to lead the country move to the 21st century. They should be challenged with their assumption that Clinton???s more experienced. They should ask themselves what that ???experienced??? really means????a failed healthcare reform? being a wife of a politician?

    This Internet age has revolutionized many things. One of them is to show us that many of the CEO's of today's leading companies are run by people at their 30s and 40s. Their qualifications are not because they have lived long enough to have more experience.

    No wonder the old forms of mainstream media--newspapers, magazines, TVs--are on the path of becoming obsolete, because the very people who run these organizations are not forward thinking enough to envision a country being led by a new kind of leader. Plus, in this fast moving Internet age, who want to have those whose experience are deeply shaped by the 20th century, such as Clinton and McCain.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/26/2008 12:45:15 AM

    Comment: Do you know that the Arabs have the Clinton's in their pockets. This is where Obama can gain ground on the Clintons. REmember the Clinton's sold the Lincoln Bedroom to the Chinese. We are in debt and we are dealing with it in the wrong way. Bush/Clinton are run by the same financial entities. What is good for George Sorros is good for George Bush. Obama is the only candidate can bring factions together in order to implement an economic plan that is in the best interest of the United States, NOT INDIA, NOT CHINA AND NOT SAUDI ARABIA"S best interest, AMERICA"S BEST INTEREST.

  • Posted By: drdaviddthornton @ 01/25/2008 11:34:26 PM

    Comment: For the uneducated, politics is like a high school popularity contest; for the educated public, a contest of merit; and for the politicians and lobbyist it most often appears to be a contest of graft. Therefore, a good strategist will attempt to run a campaign of balanced tactics in order to create a subset environment producing a majority of support. It should be of no surprise that the candidates will make no mistake in ignoring any of the groups.

    • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/26/2008 03:02:31

      Comment: AMEN, Dr. David! Obama burned his cross appeal by becoming the "black" candidate by changing his style after Nevada and acting like a Southern Baptist preacher. Look how he lost half of his white votes in the SC polls...mostly to Edwards...but some of the African-American women are now trending to Hillary as well. Obama is too one-sided now. Might as well put Jesse Jackson back in the race!

      • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 09:13:44

        Comment: That's what I call a Freudian slip.

        But just to set the record straight, they were predicting before the primary that Obama would garner 10% of the white Democrat vote, when in fact, he got 27% and the rest were divided among Clinton and Edwards. And how do you explain Iowa?

        Obama hasn't changed his speech or cadence at all. It's Hillary Clinton who adopts a different accent to suit her audience. Her speech in Selma last year made most of us wince.

      • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/26/2008 03:25:15

        Comment: Correction: Obama burned his appeal that reached across the spectrum...not burned his cross (appeal)...slip of the keyboard!

  • Posted By: "Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen @ 01/25/2008 11:26:21 PM

    Comment: Heard at the Clinton breakfast table:

    Hillary: Gadzooks! That darn Drudge and his photo of us with Rezko makes me look like a hypocrite.

    And I already made my excuse on this Rezko mess and the press isn't buying it.

    Bill: Whaddidusay hun?

    Hillary: I told them that I did not know who Rezko is.

    Bill: Well, you could tell them now it depends what the meaning of "is" is.

    He!he!he!

    Worked for me.

    (Sic semper Dogpatch)

  • Posted By: IrishNeal @ 01/25/2008 11:20:25 PM

    Comment: I read everything I can about every candidate. Boy was this article slanted. There is probably an element of truth that every canditate truly believes in and stands for. The rest is simply to win votes and get into office. As far as the Clintons' trying to get the "dumb American" votes (if indeed they are - but there are no facts here to support that claim), that shouldn't be too hard. Look at all the people duped by the current President's war actions. I think there are quite a few sheep that want to follow. The question is, are they dumb Americans or just lazy? I think the latter.

  • Posted By: RogerMiller @ 01/25/2008 10:56:34 PM

    Comment: What about twisting the words of Hillary Clinton about MLK and LBJ to create a racial backlash by Obama camapaign ... you want Obama to be the nominee so the Republicans can really run a racially surcharged election and win easily ... I think ... Hillary will beat McCain .. saying we need to change the Iraq war direction ...

    • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 09:37:03

      Comment: If you bothered to do your research, the first people to speak out about the MLK faux pas (and it was a terrible gaffe for someone who claims to have deeply admired MLK since she was a girl, and who campaigned against President Johnson) were Clinton's own supporters.

      She made a mistake. She tried to downplay hopes and aspirations because that message seemed to resonate more than her message of experience (and let's be realistic, if it comes down to experience, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a prayer when compared to at least three of the Republican candidates). So she, unwisely, used the analogy of Dr King and President Johnson. She spent the next two weeks trying to explain why she was right ad nauseum, instead of letting it go. African-Americans forgive her for that slight, but only to the extent she and her supporters don't try to turn it on its head and make like it's Obama's fault. She's the one who said it, not him. And he has said nothing whatsoever to minimize President Johnson's role in passing Civil Rights legislation in '64 and '68.

      I will say this. At one point, as a matter of political expedience, Johnson asked King to stop protesting, but to his credit, when King refused on the basis that the movement would lose impetus and it would send the wrong kind of message to the enemies of civil rights, Johnson then suggested King follow his conscience, and Johnson would, too. The two men had fundamental differences of opinion, especially on the Vietnam War. But for the cause of civil rights, they are both heroes to us all.

  • Posted By: rokkinrobin55 @ 01/25/2008 10:17:14 PM

    Comment: If Americans really want "change" consider this. The Clintons, especially Bill, are engaging in "politics as usual". Isn't it time that we change that? I hope Obama continues to call out the Clintons on there smear campaign and does not sucumb to it

  • Posted By: khcsac @ 01/25/2008 9:23:20 PM

    Comment: As Romney said, with Bill Clinton going back to White House and nothing to do is scary.

  • Posted By: vclayson@msn.com @ 01/25/2008 9:08:48 PM

    Comment: We are witnessing a campaign like no other before. With the Clintons every word, thought and deed is considered, they bully, cajole and manipulate every political process to gain an advantage, pitting individuals, groups, races and religion against one another. No lie is too ridiculou, no fact so solid that they can't twist it to meet their ends. It hasn't come to legal challenges yet but as surely as the sun rises in the east they have contingencies for that and those contingencies as so planned that they will offset them as petty grievances by their opponents or if complex, they will say it was forced on them by their opponents. If they perceive they will slack off briefly knowing full well that an issue will pop up that they can use to their advantage. They surely have studied Sun Tzu's The Art of War, especially the part about knowing your enemies and knowing yourself. If nothing else they have set new standards for political campaigns, that would be there is no limit to the use of devious and overbearing tactics, and that no morals, principles or scruples apply and sheer gall does. We are learning how people can be manipulated by force of personality and implied and real intimidation. Somewhere in the nether world, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, amidst the fires, are celebrating, knowing their tactics have not gone out of fashion and, in fact, are being practiced today by our silver haired present day Caligula and his shrill harridan of a wife.

    • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/26/2008 03:11:11

      Comment: Oh PLEEEEZZZZZ! This is a political campaign, and the rookie, Obama, is no match with the Clintons...let alone Putan and the leaders of Korea and Iran (can't spell Auk-du-min-a-jad). You want another goofball like Bush to follow the king of goofballs GW Bush?? And when you get personal, it just goes to show that nobody can bring civility to the arena if your precious Obama looses. Your ancesters must have been French! How do you like being subjected to personal attacks?

      • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 09:37:57

        Comment: You can't spell Putin, either.

  • Posted By: jpartynski @ 01/25/2008 8:05:03 PM

    Comment: I think that it is wrong that a statesman, an ex-President of the United States should participate in negative campaigning for the benefit of this wife. They are acting like Hillary deserves the nomination and how dare Obama run against her. So why not pull out all the stops! I will never vote for Hillary, she it too divisive. To me, Obama (if only the Clintons would let him BE Obama) is the future of the Democaratic party.

  • Posted By: Young Democrat @ 01/25/2008 7:07:42 PM

    Comment: FInally, an honest assessment of what's going on in this contest. Thank you for your eloquence and sharp political eye.

    For what it's worth, as a doctoral student and feminist under the age of 35, I will vote ONLY for Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will refuse to vote in November.

    • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/26/2008 03:14:21

      Comment: Just goes to show that a PhD does not mean that you are smart! We have a process and if Barack were to win the nomination, do you think Hillary's supporters would roll over and give up? Besides, how do you know that Hillary would not reach across the aisle...especially since Obama made it so popular in this election. If anything, think of it as a sleazy tactic Hillary would attempt...does that make you feel better, enough so to go out and vote unlike many throughout the world who cannot vote???

  • Posted By: ~SMT~ @ 01/25/2008 7:02:50 PM

    Comment: I'm going to vote for anyone who runs against Hillary. Do we really want Monika Lewinsky's ex boyfriend's wife to be our president?

  • Posted By: ericrsiny @ 01/25/2008 6:38:26 PM

    Comment: From Chicago Sun-Times (and NOT from Clintons or anyone else anti-Obama) back in JUNE 2007.

    During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

    Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

    But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.

  • Posted By: wyl5326 @ 01/25/2008 6:13:28 PM

    Comment: The Clintons smear attacks and distortions is going to come back to them
    either as we now see a gathering momentum coming from all over. There is now a
    slow but continuous drip on their dysfunctional persona that will become a
    tsunami and swept them out to oblivion. NBC just showed a picture of Rezko
    posing between the Clintons and she has the audacity to call him a slumlord
    supporter of Barack. This is a very powerful image that can be use with HIll's
    own word to attack her. No amount of dismissal can clean up their dirty
    reputation when all their shady supporters are lined up posing with the
    Clintons. Adding a YouTube video of the wagging finger and his own words
    spliced together "I did not have sex with that woman ... Hillary" would be a
    big hit that will be repeated over late night shows. The Clintons may survived
    it, but would make any restoration futile as voters are reminded of how divided
    we've become as a result of them !
    On Hill's attack of Barack's Reagan's era comment, she is actually telling
    the world that she is a stupid woman herself for actually praising Reagan
    herself. Hill has the tendency to grab airtime from rivals and future host of
    debates should have a switch to shut off offending party's microphone. That
    should be a lesson that can be captured and posted on YouTube ! She is so power
    hungry that will resort to grabbing anything, including hays !

  • Posted By: Karenn1 @ 01/25/2008 5:09:54 PM

    Comment: It's up to the voters to decide if Obama's "Present" votes are an issue. Anything and everything about a candidate's professional record is fair game in an election. Hillary and Bill are not making up lies about Obama. Since when is it dirty campaigning to expose your opponent's record, and to hold him accountable for his statements? This is the real world, not Obamaland.

    If Obama had based his campaign on the issues instead of on personality, and the notion of being "pure" and "untouched" by ordinary politics, he would be able to handle these criticisms better. He set himself up so that if he fights back, he looks like just another typical politician, which he is anyway. So instead he's decided to whine about dirty campaigning, even though there isn't any. That way, he can still look "pure." When you base a campaign on personality, instead of on issues, it's like building a house on sand.

  • Posted By: Be- Real @ 01/25/2008 4:53:19 PM

    Comment: We are in a very interesting and exciting time in U.S. politics. Age has made the Clintons shrewd politicians. After Iowa it was apparent Obama can trascend race and court white voters. His oratory skills and fresh approach has certainly made him more appealing then the rest of the dems. It seems the Clintons played the race card and lured Obama to the black civil rights activists and let him dwell in South Carolina. This seemed to have brought a form of phobia to white voters who ultimately form the bulk of the electorate. The Clintons by having Bill in South Carolina and thus allowing Hillary to court voters in super tuesday states is a very clever move because it makes Obama less appealling to white voters. Experience here has made the Clintons get the better of Obama. It shows that to be politically astute requires the tactful display of the art in minipulation. The Clintons have scored big time.....

  • Posted By: Foxy @ 01/25/2008 4:45:56 PM

    Comment: Here is the testimny of the man who claims had gay sex and CRACK Cocaine with Obama. Curiously Obama has NOT disputed Mr. Sinclair testimony.

    OBAMA PROBABLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE TESTED FOR COCAINE SO HE LIES LOW FOR NOW. AND HOPES THIS SCANDAL WILL GO AWAY.


    Obama is accused and up against the wall.
    The Obama camp is silent which is suspicious since if untrue they would be suing Sinclair right now.
    Here is the video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch...

  • Posted By: eXcommunicated @ 01/25/2008 4:20:22 PM

    Comment: Hillary Supporters: "The media is BIASED for decrying our candidate's lies and half-truths! Instead of pointing out the lies and distortions from our candidate, you should be writing about Obama non-issues like 'present' votes! Yeah! Those evil 'present' votes!!! Rezko Rezko Rezko! Who cares if those allegations have been shown to be false or non-issues? Newsweek, you are biased!"

    With these kind of supporters, who needs the rest of the party, eh?

  • Posted By: maxstar212 @ 01/25/2008 4:04:01 PM

    Comment: Alterman should spend time reading the text of of Obama's words. You don't have to be Derrida or Levi-Strauss to be able to Deconstruct the meaning of his statements. Read Obama's own words about why people voted for Reagan and you would see that the Clinton's are not wrong in their charachterization, from the perspective of naturally partisan Democrats like myself.

    He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

    The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was The Great Society, the environmental movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of Corporations. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.

  • Posted By: maxstar212 @ 01/25/2008 4:02:48 PM

    Comment: Alterman should spend time reading the text of of Obama's words. You don't have to be Derrida or Levi-Strauss to be able to Deconstruct the meaning of his statements. Read Obama's own words about why people voted for Reagan and you would see that the Clinton's are not wrong in their charachterization, from the perspective of naturally partisan Democrats like myself.

    He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

    The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was The Great Society, the environmental movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of Corporations. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.

  • Posted By: bastrovi @ 01/25/2008 3:57:47 PM

    Comment: I have lost a great deal of respect and loyalty for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Why must they continue to voice all of these lies against Obama. It's obvious that the Clintons would rather insult the American people's intelligence by making these continous false accusations in hopes that we can't see through their plot. I was beside myself when IHillary admitted during the last debate that she had actually took time to read Obama's transcript from a Nevada interview. I really hope the Clinton's get a life, stop the destortion of Obama's character and discuss the important issues facing the American people.. It's so unprofessional for the two of them to continue to behave in this inappropriate manner, as if they were hired to be "Chief" and Assistant Chief Crooked Cop..

  • Posted By: mscarr1 @ 01/25/2008 3:53:15 PM

    Comment: If you people want to re-elect Bill Clinton via Hillary - you are as dumb as they think you are....and you will prove them right.

    No more of Clinton or Bush as President - pick someone else - Dem or Rep - just someone else.

  • Posted By: eXcommunicated @ 01/25/2008 3:50:56 PM

    Comment: Seems Clinton supporters like Karenn1 below fit the bill! Do they really just not understand Obama's words or do they willfully and deliberately misrepresent his words?

    But beyond that, any sane unbiased person would read Jonathan Alter's article and plainly see he is criticizing the Clintons for taking their supporters as fools. He is clearly not criticizing less educated people, who he is criticizing are ignorant people.

    • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/25/2008 20:22:11

      Comment: You and Alter neglect the fact that Obama is taking his "brothers" as fools as well. He is a rookie and acts like one by turning his style from non-racial into sounding like a southern Baptist preacher.

      I'm a Clinton supporter who is big enough to laugh at Hillary when she put on that same fake accent earlier last year. Had Obama kept his cool and not pandered to African-Americans...he had them after Iowa...he could have remained above the fray regardless of any attack.

      Think of a state senator near you and give that person two years in the U.S. Senate and then replace Obama with that person...nobody around me is ready for the Oval Office, and neither is Obama. Face it, every election we complain that our choices are limited...but we usually weed out the JV players in the end anyway.

  • Posted By: eXcommunicated @ 01/25/2008 3:47:49 PM

    Comment: Reading Comprehension....

    Jonathan Alter was not criticizing less-educated voters... He was criticizing the Clintons for assuming less educated voters are dumb and the Clintons' shameless pandering to ignorance.

    Read the friggin article next time, this time with your eyes open.

  • Posted By: Karenn1 @ 01/25/2008 3:42:17 PM

    Comment: Jonathan Alter thinks the American public is stupid. We can read for ourselves what Obama said about Reagan and the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." We know that Reagan was selling a return to the so-called good old days before civil rights and feminism. Well, Obama, without those excesses of the 60s and 70s, you would not be running for President.

    Obama gave this interview to a conservative newsppaper in Nevada, in an attempt to appeal to conservative voters. Thank God Bill Clinton is out there exposing these issues because the media sure won't do it.

  • Posted By: ericrsiny @ 01/25/2008 3:10:00 PM

    Comment: Rezko was a lot more than what Obama is trying to say and to paint Rezko onto the Clintons is ridiculous. Tony Rezko SERVED on OBAMA's finance committee for US Senate. He had a hand in raising a lot more money than what Obama is returning/donating to charity.

    • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 09:47:57

      Comment: The problem for you is - Rezko didn't serve on Obama's campaign finance committee. He raised some money for him on his own account. Just like Tony Rezko's lawyer raised $130,000 for Hillary Clinton. The difference is, Obama gave the money donated by Rezko associates to charity, and Clinton kept the money raised by Rezko's lawyer.

      If you want to play those games, let's talk about how Clinton has kept over $150,000 from IPA's disbarred, ex-con boss amid a bevvy of class action suits from small businesses which claim they were defrauded, to over 100 female employees who claim they were sexually harassed. Other politicians who received donations returned them, but not Hillary Clinton. Why?

  • Posted By: ericrsiny @ 01/25/2008 3:08:19 PM

    Comment: Jim Clyburn today stated that it was NOT Hillary or Obama who brought the issue of race into the South Carolina primary but rather Mike Huckabee with his comments on the Confederate flag. The voters AND the media should listen to what he is saying.

  • Posted By: bigbrewhaha @ 01/25/2008 12:22:15 PM

    Comment: I really liked the clintons for a long time even through the scandals of the 90's because at the end of the day bill was a good guy and a good president, but recently i'm forced to reconsider my support of the clinton camp once they started attacking a young open minded positive thinking democrat like barack obama, i think they have been arguing with republicans for so long they now see anyone that disagrees with them as an angry republican when obama more than any of the democrats represents what the party used to be all about, namely change for a better healthier america.

  • Posted By: drisc2000 @ 01/25/2008 12:13:11 PM

    Comment: I think you may have missed the point of what the Clintons are doing. By raising the issues of gender and race, they succeeded in making Obama the "black" candidate. It is no coincidence that the Clintons primary constituency, less educated white voters, are moving away from Obama, even in South Carolina. This is classic Bill Clinton, divide and conquer politics. If you win, you can clean up the mess later. By the way your comment that the impeachment trial was a witch hunt is factually inaccurate. He did commit perjury and he did misuse his office (even he admits this). I think Bill Clinton did some great things, but he also fumbled some important issues, such as national health care (with Hillary's help). She suffers from the same problem he had in regard to public opinion, abivilance. Her negative poll numbers have not budged in two years. Independents are put off by her and conservatives will rally against her. She is the Republicans dream candidate. McCain will beat her easily because the hill for him to climb is so small, nearly half the electorate has already rejected her. Remember that even in the 90's the best Bill could do was 46% of the vote in 1996. Were it not for Ross Perot, he would never have been elected president in the first place.

  • Posted By: jnwilderness @ 01/25/2008 11:04:38 AM

    Comment: So when will Bill, oops Hillary, Clinton be sworn in? Oh, and Jeb Bush is waiting in the wings to retake the White House and, as before, The Clinton 2.0 White House will make sure that it talks about and implements policies that will insure that the Republicans retake Congress in 2010 (paving the way for Jeb). You know, "Another Contract with America" and since most of Bill's, darn it, Hillary's supporters are suffering from "withdrawal" as a result of not having enough of Rush Limburger et al, well here's their opportunity to get their "fix".

    Hey, it's like "deja vu all over again". I just can't wait, can you?

    However, if you're not exactly thrilled about that, then perhaps you should ignore the attacks and look for change. We need someone to infuse unity. We need someone that will bring a new perspective. Yes, The NY Times endorsed Hillary, but did they really or was it Bill that they were endorsing? Ask yourself?

    IF The Clintons retake the presidency and the republicans retake congress the ones that will suffer is us, the american people. We will be in a "quagmire" and I'm NOT referring to Iraq either. Oh, by the way, I'm consider to be an "Independent", whatever that means.

  • Posted By: MScarmack @ 01/25/2008 10:44:28 AM

    Comment: What I find patronizing is the media's assertion that Democratic primary voters haven't already figured all of this out on their own. God forbid they choose someone not over race and gender, but over experience and substance over inexperience and style. And God forbid the voters actually will get a chance to vote rather than have one candidate coronated by the media after one state caucus. The media is hell bent on making this primary about race and gender instead of actual issues. That I find insulting and yes, patronizing.

  • Posted By: Massiel08 @ 01/25/2008 10:20:26 AM

    Comment: I could care less about these Resko problem PEOPLE OBAMA DID NOTHING ILLEGAL! Resko helped him raise money back at a time when he didnt know or no one knew he was practicing in shady business deals. Look if Obama wrote legislation to somehow help Resko or got into some shady business deals than I would have a problem with that. Clinton should not bring that up she is dirtier than mud.

    • Posted By: apolemic @ 01/25/2008 11:36:07

      Comment: Some interesting news cropped up on MSNBC, regarding the Clintons appearing in a congenial photo side by side with "slumlord" Tony Rezko ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22839654 ). Think of it: the Clintons appearing all chummy with the guy Hillary tried to tar Obama with.
      However, my point is not to accuse the Clintons of anything, other than obvious hypocrisy. Both of them went through the hell of false allegations over Whitewater; they should know better than to try to slime a guy with the same sort of lie that plagued them through the '90s.

  • Posted By: Massiel08 @ 01/25/2008 10:13:16 AM

    Comment: How can you argue you are against the war, but have voted for it. How can you say you bring about change but you and your husband have had an opportunities to solve issues such as healthcare, green technology, dependecy on foreign oil, mid-east turmoil, globalization? These are different times in the 90's yes the budget was balanced but our white house was full of scandal and dirty tactics. I dont think that in these times we can put the Clintons back in the White House and expect them to get along with the Republicans and actually solve jobs. Enough Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, etc..I am 23 years old and that's all I know and the problems are the same. I dont thing anybody can really explain to me Hillary's experience what bills has she wrote? or pass? Obama has actually had bills on ethics reform and nuclear prolification pass and become law (yes Bush actually signed a democratic bill). We have to look forward and not try to re-live the past.

  • Posted By: BeitzCr @ 01/25/2008 9:49:02 AM

    Comment: The Clintons have become the daily joke in America. But some fools will vote for her. I hope to vote Democratic....but will vote any, ANY Republican rather than her. She is not a leader, is divisive, would be the worst at pulling both parties together, LIES, sends jobs (including hi-tech IT jobs), had 3 positions on illegal immigration in 5 days. It is difficult to be such a liar, and loser at the same time.

  • Posted By: Change is a verb not a platform @ 01/25/2008 9:46:17 AM

    Comment: The Chicago Tribune: "Beyond the heated sound bites is a story of a more complex relationship that long boosted Obama's political fortunes but now could prove a campaign liability. For years after Rezko befriended Obama in the early 1990s, he helped bankroll the politician's campaigns. Then, after Obama's election to the U.S. Senate, Rezko engaged him in private financial deals to improve their adjoining South Side properties. Those arrangements became a source of lingering controversy after the Tribune first reported them in November 2006.???

    ???Now Rezko's federal corruption trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 25. As Obama stumps for votes, coverage of the high-profile proceedings could bring fresh, unwelcome reminders for Obama of Rezko's influence in the same Illinois political world that propelled the senator to a serious run at the presidency."

    • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 10:01:58

      Comment: The Chicago Tribune has an agenda. They have been trashing Obama ever since he announced his candidacy. The Trib is a staunchly Republican newspaper. It hasn't endorsed a Democrat presidential candidate since 1872, when it reluctantly endorsed a Democrat who used to be a Republican. This newspaper supported George W. Bush vociferously, not just his candicacy for President but also his policies. The Trib wants Republicans to retain the White House, and they are doing their darndest to ensure that Hillary Clinton gets the Democrat nomination, because they know the Republicans stand a better chance of being elected in November running against her.

  • Posted By: Sublime Dialectic @ 01/25/2008 9:43:00 AM

    Comment: Excellent Artilcle, Mr. Jonathan Alter

    Thinking is not patronizing as a few have indicated in the comments section. As the leading modern and historical democracy, we should dig deeper than the bitter political warfare that the Hill and Bill are currently waging against Senator Barack Obama. It's despicable!!

    Th

  • Posted By: GeeMan @ 01/25/2008 9:26:28 AM

    Comment: Guess what - Hillary was shown a photo she and Bill took with the "slum lord" Retzko at the White House - and in classic Clintonian - of course she had no recollection. Like she had none of the now-convicted crook who was bundling money into her campaign. She's probably forgotten too about the commodities deals she enabled, Whitewater, Katherine Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, voting for the war before voting against it, voting for Bankruptcy Bill (anyone say Wall Street lobby?) but "happy it did not pass".

    You go girl - with the party machine in your stranglehold and the Establishment too scared to call you and Bill to order over the Swift Boating of Obama, the Democratic masses can be hoodwinked into handing you the nomination.

    Then the rest of us will pass the popcorn as the Republicans jog your memory about your real resume and history of the "35 years of experience". They gave us a preview of what's to come last night in Boca Raton. But this time, no true, thinking Democrat will carry water for the Clintons. No mas.

  • Posted By: tdn0024 @ 01/25/2008 9:01:49 AM

    Comment: A huge area where Hillary is being disingenuous, and the press has yet to cover:

    Al Gore. As the VP charged with Reinventing Government, he was widely reported by the media for having unprecedented value for that job. Gore was the guy who sought to streamline and run the gov't, while Bill focused on policy. CEO (Bill), COO (Al).

    This is a big deal.

    Hilary has her facts wrong when she criticizes Obama by saying "you have to do more than just talk." She says Bill was great -- and he 'just talked.' Al managed.

    Hillary seems to be proposing a very hands on management style. Last tried by a very unsuccessful Jimmy Carter. Also, 'efficient meetings' have clearly led to weakness in the present Bush Administration, for the lack of ideas and discussion.

    Reagan had a big impact, and 'just talked.' Many of supported Bill, who 'just talked."

    Recent history shows that 'just talking' is the appropriate and efficient use of the Presidential office. Delegation to others for execution is appropriate.

    Hillary is off base on a major issue of real relevance to Presidential temperament.

    As a citizen, I would respectfully ask the press to go read its own archives about the partnership of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and evaluatuate the Reinventing Governement role of Al Gore in view of Hillary's assertion that she has the best stuff for being president.

    • Posted By: wyl5326 @ 01/25/2008 18:45:53

      Comment: I fully agree with you on this.
      Here's my view:
      The Clintons smear attacks and distortions is going to come back to them
      either as we now see a gathering momentum coming from all over. There is now a
      slow but continuous drip on their dysfunctional persona that will become a
      tsunami and swept them out to oblivion. NBC just showed a picture of Rezko
      posing between the Clintons and she has the audacity to call him a slumlord
      supporter of Barack. This is a very powerful image that can be use with HIll's
      own word to attack her. No amount of dismissal can clean up their dirty
      reputation when all their shady supporters are lined up posing with the
      Clintons. Adding a YouTube video of the wagging finger and his own words
      spliced together "I did not have sex with that woman ... Hillary" would be a
      big hit that will be repeated over late night shows. The Clintons may survived
      it, but would make any restoration futile as voters are reminded of how divided
      we've become as a result of them !
      On Hill's attack of Barack's Reagan's era comment, she is actually telling
      the world that she is a stupid woman herself for actually praising Reagan
      herself. Hill has the tendency to grab airtime from rivals and future host of
      debates should have a switch to shut off offending party's microphone. That
      should be a lesson that can be captured and posted on YouTube ! She is so power
      hungry that will resort to grabbing anything, including hays !

  • Posted By: silan @ 01/25/2008 6:03:05 AM

    Comment: I completely agree with Mr. Alter. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to see that Clinton's tactics are despicable here. When the lies they spread are so easily disproven and the truth is actually out there in the open for anyone who cares to find out, all that can be surmised is that they're playing off the assumption that voters are stupid and will only believe what they are told rather than the truth.

    Americans currently despise President Bush for all the lies his administration has spread or perpetuated. And yet Clinton is still a viable candidate... why?

    If Clinton is voted into office, then I suppose what Americans are telling them is, "Yes, you're right. We're stupid. We'll gladly blunder into the same situation for no reason other than that we've seen your face on TV for years and that, therefore, must mean you're qualified to lead us."

    I'm still waiting for anyone, anywhere, to tell me exactly what makes Sen. Clinton qualified, what experience she has, what she was in charge of during her First Lady years that proves she is more capable at managing a country than the other candidates, and what exactly she wants besides residence once again in the White House. Oh, and also, why people like her so much when her lies are so blatant, and how can we place someone in office that it is proven we cannot trust?

    PLEASE, America, THINK.

  • Posted By: nkhogan @ 01/25/2008 3:53:30 AM

    Comment: Jonothan, whilst I'm sympathetic to your argument, you run the danger of sounding patronizing yourself. I think voters are a lot more intelligent than anyone gives them credit for. Well, maybe.....the majority did re-elect GWB to a second term, so one does have to wonder what people were smoking to do that....

    Anyhoo, sadly I personally think the key issue is going to once again come down to 't It's the economy, stupid." and people will vote their pocketbooks. Americans, and I am an American, are basically self-interested and self-absorbed and don't give a hoot about Iraq except as to whether or not it affects their own pockets and income.

    I am an Obama supporter and I hate the mudslinging of the Clintons. The Clinton's tactics are deplorable and divisive. I just wish Obama would not let himself get entrapped in their mudslinging as he has gotten a bit off message and it will hurt him. Obama, start talking about the economy and all your plans in great detail. Show that you are a leader. Don't get sideswiped by the Clinton slime machine.

  • Posted By: 1sprigg @ 01/25/2008 3:42:02 AM

    Comment: as i recall Obama spoke of Ronald Reagan in particular, not the republican party. moreover, what is wrong with giving ronald regan credit for americas age of supremacy (he was president when the USSR fell apart and it was his policies that baited the soviets into an arms race, and even baiting gorbachev, which proved to be the final straw). I thought that was very adult of Obama to recognize the importance of his contributions to american society, because they were very "good ideas". if you are going to give bill clinton credit for the prosperity of the 90's in america, then you have to recognize the international accomplishments by Reagan. I could be wrong but i assumed Obama was referring to these ideas.

  • Posted By: CD Politics @ 01/25/2008 3:07:52 AM

    Comment: I still don't understand how anyone can take Obama's comments that the Republicans party was "the party" of ideas for the past 10-15 years and take it to mean anything other that he was saying they were good ideas. He didn't say they had some ideas; he identified a single party, excluding the Democratic party. I've never heard or read someone say of someone with a bad idea that they are the ones with ideas. Her inference is a legitimate one. It is the same inference I drew. But in any event, there is nothing "demonstrably false" about questioning his words. Perhaps he was pandering to the conservative editorial board. Or perhaps he was trying to be critical of Bill Clinton. Or perhaps he does believe that Republican ideas of the past 15 years were good ones. The ad is a perfectly suitable method of raising the issue. It is frankly illogical to make the argument you have made that raising questions about what someone has said can be a statement of fact that can be characterized as being false.

  • Posted By: Josefina @ 01/25/2008 2:39:13 AM

    Comment: You are one sided just like the majority of media. When Obama and Edwards had attacked Hilllary before the primaries, did you say anything? You are also playing politics for Obama. I don't want to vote to a likeable guy with not enough experience. I use my brain too. I don't to vote to a similar likeable guy like George Bush., who pushed us to recession.

  • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/25/2008 2:22:41 AM

    Comment: Mr. Alter insults the so-called less educated voters who support Hillary and ignores the less educated voters for Obama (read on in the next paragraph for the examples). Who the hell do you think you are with your NYC uppity bias? You want Obama because you are tired of the Clintons. And Obama has an almost George W. Bush complex that he is chosen to lead this movement at this time...a lot of hot air!

    The Clinton strategy is to show that Obama is NOT ready, is a rookie and is all puff. Obama has stepped into so many of the Clinton traps that he has transformed himself from the great new style of candidate who just happens to be an African-American into the African-American's candidate...which is the mantle Clinton has had, along with every other working person. Obama did not have to equate Clinton with Nixon...a cheap shot on his part. Obama started the tiff by being too touchy and racist about Hillary's MLK, Jr. and LBJ remark...which was trying to make the point that you need allies in the White House. Also, look how Obama changed his style, delivery and content to relate to the South Carolina African-Americans...sounding like a Baptist preacher that we did not hear up North. Where is your outrage at him for talking ethnic to his "brothers," whom he would not categorize about Bill Clinton until he watched him "dance."

    Both sides are slugging it out, and do you really think that your journalistic elitist perspective is anything other than piling on the Clintons to draw in readers? The joke is on both you and Obama. Your piling on does not hurt the Clintons, and Obama has already shown that he is not ready for prime time, and certainly not ready to run against the Republican slime machine. Super Duper Tuesday will yield 18 Hillary wins to only about 4...if that many...Obama wins. The race will be over, and the Clintons will unite the party because they have been the party for the past several years. Hillary is not only the most qualified between the two, she handles herself better in the debates. Don't forget that Americans did actually elect Richard Nixon!

  • Posted By: Hottline @ 01/25/2008 2:22:11 AM

    Comment: Mr. Alter insults the so-called less educated voters who support Hillary and ignores the less educated voters for Obama (read on in the next paragraph for the examples). Who the hell do you think you are with your NYC uppity bias? You want Obama because you are tired of the Clintons. And Obama has an almost George W. Bush complex that he is chosen to lead this movement at this time...a lot of hot air!

    The Clinton strategy is to show that Obama is NOT ready, is a rookie and is all puff. Obama has stepped into so many of the Clinton traps that he has transformed himself from the great new style of candidate who just happens to be an African-American into the African-American's candidate...which is the mantle Clinton has had, along with every other working person. Obama did not have to equate Clinton with Nixon...a cheap shot on his part. Obama started the tiff by being too touchy and racist about Hillary's MLK, Jr. and LBJ remark...which was trying to make the point that you need allies in the White House. Also, look how Obama changed his style, delivery and content to relate to the South Carolina African-Americans...sounding like a Baptist preacher that we did not hear up North. Where is your outrage at him for talking ethnic to his "brothers," whom he would not categorize about Bill Clinton until he watched him "dance."

    Both sides are slugging it out, and do you really think that your journalistic elitist perspective is anything other than piling on the Clintons to draw in readers? The joke is on both you and Obama. Your piling on does not hurt the Clintons, and Obama has already shown that he is not ready for prime time, and certainly not ready to run against the Republican slime machine. Super Duper Tuesday will yield 18 Hillary wins to only about 4...if that many...Obama wins. The race will be over, and the Clintons will unite the party because they have been the party for the past several years. Hillary is not only the most qualified between the two, she handles herself better in the debates. Don't forget that Americans did actually elect Richard Nixon!

  • Posted By: anita la @ 01/25/2008 2:07:15 AM

    Comment: I used to be a Bill and Hillary diehard supporter. Especially Hillary's who i thought really cared about issues and was going to be a good and ethical president. I bought all of her books. Now I am totally disgusted with her unethical conduct in the campaign. Her and Bill's behaviour and remarks are despicable. They will say anything to grab power.

  • Posted By: nathan silva @ 01/25/2008 1:25:17 AM

    Comment: Wrong, Jonathan Alter! The real insult here is your expectaction that your jaundiced spewing on the Clinton's will be taken seriously by the voters. Well, I'm a voter, and I say you're just another media midget taking out your peanuts envy on Willie Bill. If there's a real surprise in this election year, it's that we the peephole voters can see things as they are, without your poopy pontificating, thank you very much. Now eat your porridge, and have the decency to shut up, please.

  • Posted By: 1sprigg @ 01/25/2008 1:17:32 AM

    Comment: It is wonderful to finally hear an article that reflects the clintons true campaign strategy, by misleading and manipulating the " less educated" sector of society in order to win the democratic nomination. the clinton's are such slimy criminals and always have been just look at whitewater, which cost the american people 73 millions dollars!

  • Posted By: Lemar0701 @ 01/25/2008 1:02:05 AM

    Comment: Barack Obama is an excellent choice for president and Clinton fails in electability. Against any possible republican nominee she'll be tossed to the wind and the Democratic Party will suffer further. While it's a wonderful thought to have a woman as a President, Mrs Clinton isn't that woman - and there are dozens of other women who could take that dream and progressivly build upon it. *08 Obama* The Clintons are less then democratic, when members of your own party tell you your out of line and need to shut up, something serious is happening - those who fail to see that are also less than intelligent.

    • Posted By: CD Politics @ 01/25/2008 03:13:15

      Comment: I don't understand how Obama supporters continue to make the electability argument when they have lost to Hillary in two or three (if you count Michigan) of the most recent primary/caucuses. If she is not electable, then how can he, who has lost to her, be any more electable?

      • Posted By: L.A. Woman @ 01/27/2008 10:07:44

        Comment: Independents and Republicans make up nearly 2/3rds of the electorate and they all hate her with an unprecedented passion Asked and answered.

      • Posted By: Massiel08 @ 01/25/2008 09:58:10

        Comment: Well they have all been REALLY close races. I am amazed that with that strong hold the Clintons have in the democratic party that they are not blowing Obama out. In the general election I think most americans are moderate (not conservatives or liberals) will not want them back in the White House. Even democrats agree that there morals are less than stellar. We do not want the same people fighting the same battles in a divisive way. The Clintons and the Bushes are from yesterday. Healthcare problems, dependency on foreign oil, globalization, terrorism etc. Come on let's move on. Hillary is not electable in the general election. I will never vote for her I'd rather see either Mitt or McCain anytime.

  • Posted By: Lemar0701 @ 01/25/2008 1:01:31 AM

    Comment: Barack Obama is an excellent choice for president and Clinton fails in electability. Against any possible republican nominee she'll be tossed to the wind and the Democratic Party will suffer further. While it's a wonderful thought to have a woman as a President, Mrs Clinton isn't that woman - and there are dozens of other women who could take that dream and progressivly build upon it. *08 Obama* The Clintons are less then democratic, when members of your own party tell you your out of line and need to shut up, something serious is happening - those who fail to see that are also less than intelligent.

  • Posted By: Dr.Woo @ 01/25/2008 12:08:22 AM

    Comment: Hillary is the opponent of choice for the Republican Party. Rupert Murdoch who owns FoxNews and now the Wall Street Journal, held a big fundraiser for Hillary. Rupert Murdoch, one of the most rightwing tycoons on the planet, holding a fundraiser for a democrat? This does not pass the smell test. Obama or Edwards! Otherwise the general election will be endless reruns of Juanita, Jennifer, Paula, Monica,Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster,on.and on. If that,s not enough. Consider this. Bill Clinton could have had a fine legacy, but he threw it away. His serial recklessness made us all vulnerable. His serial recklessness allowed a couple of sociopaths to take over our government. For all the hopes we had, Bill Clinton's legacy to us in the end is Bush/Cheney, the most disaterous administration in history. America is wounded. Let's all unite around her and show some love. The Clintons will just unite the rightwingers and bring back the hate. Please! Let's turn the page.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/24/2008 11:57:19 PM

    Comment: : Do you know that the Arabs have the Clinton's in their pockets. This is where Obama can gain ground on the Clintons. REmember the Clinton's sold the Lincoln Bedroom to the Chinese. We are in debt and we are dealing with it in the wrong way. Bush/Clinton are run by the same financial entities. What is good for George Sorros is good for George Bush. Obama is the only candidate can bring factions together in order to implement an economic plan that is in the best interest of the United States, NOT INDIA, NOT CHINA AND NOT SAUDI ARABIA"S best interest, AMERICA"S BEST INTEREST.


  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/24/2008 11:55:58 PM

    Comment: OBAMA needs to remind Bill CLinton Who he is. This is the problem with the Clintons they are not guided by principles, they make decisions based on what 's best for them politically. They have played the race card, which is against their principles, but yet they went ahead and did it. That means they do not have confidence in their so called substantive plans. Hillary went against her principles and tried to cover up what Bill DID. This is why the Clinton are not entitlied to the WHITE HOUSE. THey have brought a lot of pain to the political process and I am shocked how quick people can sell their soul. If Bill only did it once then it is understandable, but he did it everyday for decades and HIllary knew but kept herself in denial. Obama needs to attack the Clintons with their own words because what they are doing is worrie me>> Here is an example
    of How OBAMA can flip the race card back onto the CLINTON"S.
    THE Clintons are ambivalent about America'ss role in the world, this was clearly highlighted in the after a September 11, when CLINTON in a speech at Gerogetown suggested that America actually bore some responsibility for the attacks on itself. In November 2001, even as the new Bush administration was launching America's military response, the former president made a speech at Georgetown University in which he admonished citizens who were descended "from various European lineages" that they were "not blameless," and that America's past involvement in slavery should humble them as they confronted their attackers. Characteristically the President took no responsibility for his own failure to protect Americans from the attacks.

    OBAMA TAKE MY ADVICE, YOU HAVE TO FIGHT
    The same entities run both parties. CLINTON use to be what OBAMA stood for. NOW Hillary and Bill are the establishment and are now using words like slum, and insinuating that OBAMA is black and playing to the white vote. WHITE voters recognize this flip flop, this is why white men have not come out and vote for Hillary.

  • Posted By: HipsterSarah @ 01/24/2008 11:00:47 PM

    Comment: First, I have been a loyal DNC member my entire life. However, this year???s presidential campaign had made me wonder if the DNC and my vision, and view points are in alignment with each other.

    Sen. Obama???s message of hope and unity are extremely powerful. People need to hear something positive and inspiring, in order to motivate the American people to take action in our electoral process and allow people to believe in our federal government and its role in our lives.

    Second, it is apparent to me that the Clintons are willing to do anything and say anything, in order to get them back into the white house. This is not necessary. Sen. Obama has some innovative and wonderful ideas. His ideas should be heard because that will show Americans that we have 3 viable candidates and the Democratic Party have better ideas than the republicans. But, we are not able to hear his ideas because the Clintons are distorting Obama???s record, stance and issues, shamelessly. They change their message and distortions depending on the crowd that they are speaking to, further dividing different groups of people within the party.

    Lastly, the DNC has a unique opportunity to take the party in a new direction and transform the landscape of politics in this new century. I hope you will take seriously people like me who are pleading with you and asking that you recognize this opportunity and support Obama. He has energized young people to be involved, he is bringing people from different parties to the DNC